Use these links to go
CHAPTER TWO
THE EARLY COMEDIES (II)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona
and
Love's Labour's Lost
- 51 -
- - - I - - -
In his first two comedies, with their farcical elements, Shakespeare's treatment of love is anti-romantic, particularly in The Taming of the Shrew, where Petruchio exhibits none of the characteristics of lovers in romantic comedies: he does not sigh listlessly over Katherina, morbidly dwell on his love for her, write her sonnets protesting his devotion to her, or even keep his affection for her a secret. In The Comedy of Errors the love affairs between Antipholus of Syracuse and Luciana, and Dromio of Ephesus and 'the Kitchin wench', are but lightly portrayed, with attention being centred on the married couple, Adriana and Antipholus of Ephesus, from whose marriage all romance has drained. In the next two comedies romantic love conventions are much more strongly in evidence, and in The Two Gentlemen of Verona they are paramount. Here violence almost completely disappears, as does another feature of the earlier plays, the concern with divinely instituted order; however, a central interest in all of these comedies is the relationships between men and women in love. In The Two Gentlemen of Verona we are introduced to something quite alien to the earlier comedies, the conflict between love and friendship, a conflict concerning the demands of two different types of romantic love experience by the same man - the love comprising the bonds of affection and loyalty between two men (which may be termed friendship), and the heterosexual love of a man for a woman. Just as an undistorted reading of The Taming of the Shrew is impossible if the motif of divinely instituted order is ignored, so the later play cannot be properly assessed without due recognition of the romantic conventions concerning these two types of love. In an early play by Edwards, The Excellent Comedie of Two the Moste Faithfullest Friendes, Damon and Pithias, probably written in 1564, 2.1 the central concern is the friendship between the two men, and we are told that 'no friendship is sure but that which is grounded on virtue' (Damon and Pithias 329). 2.2 In this play there is no conflict between love and friendship; instead, the virtue of the men is tested when they separately come under sentence of death and each shows that he will selflessly give his life to save the other, a sacrifice which so impresses the tyrannical Dionysius that in the end the death sentences are set aside. In Lyly's Endimion, The Man in the Moone, the friendship between two men is tested by the presence of a woman: when Eumenides has to make choice between Semele and Endymion, he chooses
- 52 -
the latter, giving friendship the victory over love. On the other hand, in Euphues: The Anatomy of Wit, Euphues cheats his friend Philautus when they both fall in love with Lucilla:
Yes Euphues, where loue beareth sway, friendship can haue no shewe: As Philautus brought me for his shadowe the last supper, so will I vse him for my shadow till I haue gained his Saint. 2.3
Even here, however, the men are reunited when Lucilla abandons Endymion, and so friendship triumphs once again. It is with this literary tradition of love and friendship in mind that we should approach The Two Gentlemen of Verona.
The many errors and inconsistencies within the play and theories of possible stratification have been noted and discussed at length, 2.4 but they are of only peripheral interest to my study, which assumes that the received text is wholly Shakespearean and, in the absence of any alternative revised versions, must be critically assessed at face value. Johnson said that The Two Gentlemen of Verona 'abounds in γνώμι beyond most of [Shakespeare's] plays', 2.5 which, in keeping with eighteenth century taste, he regarded as a virtue. The play opens with one such γνώμη which, as is often the case with Shakespeare's opening lines, is thematically important:
CEase to perswade, my loving Protheus;
Home-keeping youth, haue euer homely wits.
(I.i.1-2)
The speaker is Valentine, who is about to undertake travel in order to further his worldly experience and education; he speaks to Proteus, who, being fettered to his love, Julia, cannot accompany Valentine on his journey. The first words indicate that the play opens in mid-argument with Valentine firmly resolved to leave his friend Proteus, disapproving of Proteus' decision to remain 'dully sluggardiz'd at home' in 'shapelesse idlenesse' (I.i.7-8). The conflict is not set to disrupt the friendship, however, as Valentine can still say to Proteus,
But since thou lou'st; loue still, and thriue therein,
Euen as I would, when I to loue begin.
(I.i.9-10)
The reply is equally mild, and we see that the two men are to part without hostility, despite their conflicting interests:
- 53 -
Wilt thou be gone? Sweet Valentine ad ew,
Thinke on thy Protheus, when thou (hap'ly) seest
Some rare note-worthy obiect in thy trauaile.
(I.i.11-13)
The names of the two gentlemen are mentioned twice each in the two opening speeches, indicating that Shakespeare intended the audience to take note of their significance. As early as 1450 the word 'valentine' was used to designate a lover, specifically one chosen on St Valentine's Day, 2.6 and so the name is ironical here, as it is Proteus who is in love while Valentine is mildly sceptical, something which will be made clearer as the scene progresses. Nevertheless, Valentine does fall in love later, and his name is apt if this is taken into account. There is also a touch of irony in Proteus' name, for a 'proteus' was a person or thing which was inconstant, 2.7 this use deriving from the Greek sea god Πρωτεύς who could change his shape at will in order to intimidate those who sought oracles from him; 2.8 but, significantly, if his shape-changing tactics were ignored, he would revert to his normal form and speak the truth, which could presage Proteus' reformation at the end of the play. The god's mutability is described by Elyot in The Boke Named the Gouernour:
... Proteus, who is supposed to haue turned hym selfe into figures, as some time to shewe hym selfe lyke a serpente, some time lyke a lyon, other whiles like water, an other tyme lyke the flame of fyre. 2.9
The use of his name alerts the audience to the possibility that the seemingly constant young man in love presented in the first scene could prove fickle. The immediate irony goes deeper than this, however: Valentine's opening γνώμη implies that Proteus is a 'Home-keeping youth' with 'homely wits', but Perry has shown convincingly that the name was widely associated with Italianate sophistication in late sixteenth century literature, 2.10 and so Valentine's assessment of his friend may prove inaccurate.
In the remainder of the opening duologue the conflict between the two men is elaborated in a light, humorous vein: both regard love in purely romantic terms - love is
... where scorne is bought with grones:
Coy looks, with hart-sore sighes: one fading moments mirth
With twenty watchfull, weary tedious nights,
(I.i.29-31)
- 54 -
and Proteus is seen as 'a votary to fond desire' (I.i.52). The very nature of this love, so obviously a literary convention rather than a realistic, true emotion, might make us uneasy, particularly in view of the significance of Proteus' name; we may also note that Proteus' reaction to love follows romantic convention, resulting in considerable inner conflict, brought out in his brief soliloquy which comes between Valentine's departure and Speed's entrance:
I leave my selfe, my friends, and all for loue:
Thou Iulia thou hast metamorphis'ed me:
Made me neglect my Studies, loose my time:
Warre with good counsaile; set the world at nought;
Made Wit with musing, weake; hart sick with thought.
(I.i.65-69)
This inner conflict in a character whose very name suggests inconstancy is disturbing, for the source of the conflict is the metamorphosis Julia has induced in Proteus, that is, the transference of his loyalty from Valentine to Julia, and the resulting separation of the men. What is more unsettling on a symbolic level, is that the separation of the two men is to be by sea. I believe that the now famous geographical inconsistence here was overlooked by Shakespeare because he was concerned with the imagery: the sea, as we have seen in The Comedy of Errors, 2.11 was a hostile image of separation and even death, and in the present scene it has just these connotations. The first sea reference is oblique, but bodes ill:
Pro.
Vpon some booke I loue, I'le pray for thee.
Val.
That's on some shallow Storie of deepe loue,
How yong Leander crost the Hellespont.
Pro.
That's a deepe Storie, of a deeper loue,
For he was more then ouer-shooes in loue.
Val.
'Tis true; for you are ouer-bootes in loue,
And yet you neuer swom the Hellespont.
(I.i.20-26)
The choice of classical allusion must be significant: Leander's sea journey of love ended tragically with his drowning; and there is a hint that Proteus' love is perhaps not quite as great a Leander's. Furthermore, this allusion is the first in a pattern, identified by Godshalk, in which
the use of classical myth suggests and even implies a tragic outcome for the action, as the characters become partially or wholly identified with figures in the myths. In this subtle manner, Shakespeare, builds an almost subliminal sense
- 55 -
of crisis, suspense, and tension. 2.12
The tragic outcome of the story of Hero and Leander cannot be directly applied in the present case, but it, too, involves a sea-separation much as Proteus and Valentine are about to undergo, which establishes a link sufficient to cause some concern in that the effect of the journey might be at least disruptive, if not violent. Of significance here is the Freudian association, 'Departure in dreams means dying', 2.13 implying that at a very deep level we associate travelling with death, which enhances Shakespeare's use of sea imagery, making the sea journey even more threatening.
The next sea reference comes in the humorous ship - sheep word-play between Proteus and Speed:
Sp.
... saw you my Master?
Pro.
But now he parted hence to embarque for Millain.
Sp.
Twenty to one then, he is ship'd already,
And I haue plaid the Sheepe in loosing him.
Pro.
Indeede a Sheepe doth very often stray,
And if the Shepheard be awhile away.
(I.i.70-75)
This reintroduces the idea of sea-separation, which once again hints at unfortunate consequences - the sheep may be lost in the shepherd's absence. Proteus' lines echo the words of Isaiah:
All we like shepe haue gone astraie: we haue turned euerie one to hys owne way, and the Lorde hathe layed vpon hym the iniquitie of vs all.
(Isaiah 53:6)
What Shakespeare borrows from Isaiah's analogy is the idea that straying sheep can come to harm, another sinister association with the sea journey. Like the tale of Hero and Leander, this has no direct application to the present story, but the suggestion is sufficient to add to the tension. Finally we have
Go, go, be gone, to saue your Ship from wrack,
Which cannot perish hauing thee aboarde,
Being destin'd to a drier death on shore.
(I.i.142-144)
This is a direct reference to Valentine's ship, and the association with violence, although humorously referring to Speed's destiny (hanging), reinforces the disturbing ideas already noted in the earlier sea references.
- 56 -
After the introduction of the two men and their disagreement in the first scene, the second scene shows us Julia, the woman who has come between the men, thus causing the conflict. Although she is seen to adhere strictly to one of the fundamental rules of romantic love, secrecy, she is immediately a much more rounded, living character than either of the men, largely because Shakespeare does not give her the romantic, flowery excesses of language we have seen the men using. Perhaps Proteus can be forgiven for divulging the secret of his love to his close friend, Valentine, 2.14 since Julia (although she strikes us as a much more positive, forceful character than Proteus) comes perilously close to doing the same thing by almost revealing her love to her maid Lucetta in her very first scene. At the outset of the conversation between maid and mistress an air of intimacy is established:
But say Lucetta (now we are alone)
Would'st thou then counsaile me to fall in loue?
(I.ii.1-2)
The conversation is lively and Julia initially enjoys her role of feigned indifference, countering Lucetta's suggestions that she and Proteus are in love. Lucetta, however, has an unfair advantage in the letter she has from Proteus, and when this is revealed Julia adopts a more hostile approach: love has also come between maid and mistress, disrupting their relationship, and the resulting conflict creates tension, with the audience anxious to see who will win each thrust and parry of the verbal contest.
Having dismissed Lucetta, Julia reveals her inner conflict, that she regrets her harsh behaviour towards the maid, and that it is really her modesty which has made her secretive about her love. She resolves to apologise to Lucetta and calls her back. Her sudden change of mind (all she can manage by way of remorse is 'Is't neere dinner time?' (I.ii.67)) is comic, but also serves to highlight her inner conflict, which once again surfaces and seriously threatens their friendship. The humorous word-play of their conversation is typical of Shakespeare's early comedies, and breaks into violence when Julia snatches the letter from Lucetta:
Iu.
Let's see your Song:
How now Minion?
Lu.
Keepe tune there still; so you will sing it out:
And yet me thinkes I do not like this tune.
Iu.
You doe not?
Lu.
No (Madam) tis too sharpe.
Iu.
You (Minion) are too saucie.
(I.ii.88-93)
Most editors insert a stage direction indicating some act of violence on Julia's part after line 89 ('Keepe tune there still ...'), 2.15 as is appropriate to the dialogue. I have discussed the significance of the witty play on musical terms in this passage elsewhere; 2.16 suffice it to say here that the conflict is presented in light-hearted terms as Julia maintains her indifference to Proteus, but when she is left by herself, her fanciful second soliloquy reveals the true extent of her inner turmoil. She regrets the violence done to Proteus' letter - 'Oh hatefull hands, to teare such louing words' (I.ii.106) - and carefully sorts through the pieces, cherishing those bearing his name. The part where her own name is written,
... That, some whirle-winde beare
Vnto a ragged, fearefull, hanging Rocke,
And throw it thence into the raging Sea.
((I.ii.121-123)
The violence of Julia's emotion reveals the depth of her love for Proteus, and she wishes for complete dissolution in the 'raging Sea' rather than to suffer the torments of hiding her love. Yet again the sea is a hostile force, giving weight to the idea that harm may result from Valentine's sea journey.
As might be anticipated in a romantic comedy, there is parental opposition to the love between Proteus and Julia, 2.17 and, because he tries to hide his love from his father, he is sent to join Valentine. Once again, Shakespeare uses hostile sea imagery when Proteus ponders his fate in soliloquy:
Thus haue I shund the fire, for heare of burning,
And drench'd me in the sea, where I am drown'd.
(I.iii.78-79)
Proteus must undertake a sea journey to reach Valentine, and he sees this journey in characteristically overblown romantic terms, as threatening his life, the implication being that he will die if separated from Julia. In view of this, his closing couplet is surprising, revealing a conflict hitherto kept secret:
Why this it is: my heart accords thereto,
- 58 -
And yet a thousand times it answer's no.
(I.iii.90-91)
This is the first concrete indication of Proteus' changeable nature, for now he is torn between the desire to join Valentine and that to stay with Julia, whereas previously he was resolved to stay with Julia at all costs.
When we next see Valentine he, too, has fallen in love, and, like Proteus, has become a romantic lover - absent-minded, careless of appearance and diet, and in a constant malaise, all of which is amusingly revealed to him by Speed. The beloved, Sylvia, also shows characteristics of the romantic heroine: she addresses her suitors as 'servant' and withholds her love from them, giving rise to conflict between the man and the woman he pursues. Her coquettish behaviour towards the love-struck Valentine over the matter of the letter she requested him to write makes Valentine look decidedly silly, and causes both Speed and the audience much amusement. Immediately after this episode we are returned to Verona (presumably) where Proteus takes leave of Julia. The two scenes beg comparison, and by contrast, the love between Proteus and Julia is much more real and deep-seated, despite Proteus' high-flown language. We are briefly moved by the leave-taking - only briefly, because it is followed by a refreshing parody - Launce's description of his parting from his family. Brooks observes that the main function Launce in the play is to provide 'burlesque parallels, to the themes of friendship on the one hand and love on the other', 2.18 and here it is love that he burlesques, with his meticulous reconstruction of his family's parting and his tedious extension from the previous scene of the 'tide' pun - which, incidentally, is another unpleasant association of the sea, since the tide is linked with tears in both scenes.
While Launce's account of his farewell is comic, and in its echoing of the serious scene which precedes, it, it provides a light, refreshing contrast, it is, nevertheless, affecting in its own right. Crab, 'the sowrest natured dogge that liues' (II.iii.5-6), is seen by Launce as being totally unsympathetic to his miseries, and as such Crab represents the generally unfeeling attitude towards the troubles and sorrows of servants. They are figures of fun, and their plight, however, serious, may be made the subject of laughter, even among themselves: Launce considers it a great jest when he detains Speed unnecessarily, making it likely the latter will be beaten for being late:
- 59 -
Now will he be swing'd for reading my Letter; An vnmannerly slaue, that will thrust himselfe into secrets: Ile after, to reioyce in the boyes correctiõ.
(III.ii.372-374)
As Launce himself says, 'When a mans seruant shall play the Curre with him (looke you) it goes hard' (IV.iv.1-2), and although we do not see the comic beatings of Launce and Speed as we did in the case of the Dromios and Grumio in the earlier comedies, the convention of beating servants is still relied on for comic effect. Launce gives a catalogue of the various times he has suffered to save Crab's life - whippings, sitting in the stocks and being pilloried (IV.iv.28-32). Despite the suffering implied in these punishments, the account of them is humorous, with the character of Crab, unworthy of his owner's devotion, providing the comic foil to offset the pain, and making the devotion itself comic.
Just before Proteus arrives in Milan an additional element of conflict is introduced, with Thurio and Valentine being rivals to the hand of Silvia. 'A fine volly of words ... quickly shot off' (II.iv.30-31) between the two men in typically Shakespearean comic fashion serves to reveal the hostility between them. There is a hint from Speed that this could develop into violence when he, observing Thurio's displeasure, advises Valentine, ' 'Twere good you knockt him' (II.iv.7), but this comes to nothing because the men are still exchanging words when the Duke enters. Their brief argument serves to reveal the ineptitude of Thurio: at both arguing and loving he is a dolt, and we watch with interest to see how he and Valentine fare in their competition for Silvia's hand.
When Proteus and Valentine are left alone 'to confer of home affaires' (II.iv.114), their conversation turns to matters of love, and we find that Valentine has indeed been 'Metamorphis'd with a Mistris' (II.i.29-30), as Speed had said. Not only does he rehearse for us all the hallmarks of the romantic lover which Speed mentioned earlier, but we also see an astonishing insistence on Silvia's merit, even to the extent of his demanding from Proteus an admission that she is better than Julia. Love again threatens to disrupt friendship, for a note of hostility may be detected between the two men at this point:
Pro.
Why Valentine, what Bragadisme is this?
Val.
Pardon me (Protheus) all I can is nothing,
To her, whose worth, make other worthies nothing;
Shee is alone.
Pro.
Then let her alone.
Val.
Not for the world.
(II.iv.159-164)
- 60 -
The sea journey has had its effect on Valentine - but not the desired one of education: his mind, if anything, has been narrowed by love. The worst is yet to come, however; when Valentine departs, Proteus reveals to the audience that he, too, has been metamorphosed: he has just arrived in Milan, seen Silvia for a few fleeting moments, and already his 'loue is thaw'd' (II.iv.196) for Julia, and his 'zeale to Valentine is cold' (II.iv.199):
But when I looke on her perfections,
There is no reason, but I shall be blinde.
If I can checke my erring loue, I will,
If not, to compasse her Ile vse my skill.
(II.iv.207-210)
This rapid transition, forsaking friendship and his old love for Silvia, induces in Proteus an inner conflict which is revealed when we next see him:
To leaue my Iulia; shall I be forsworne?
To loue faire Siluia; shall I be forsworne?
To wrong my friend, I shall be much forsworne.
And ev'n that Powre which gaue me first my oath
Prouokes me to this three-fold periurie.
(II.vi.1-5)
Love of Silvia urges Proteus to forsake Julia and Valentine, but he realises that he cannot be true to himself in renouncing Silvia, and so it is love of self which finally decides the matter. Thus both Valentine and Proteus have become debased characters in Milan, Valentine in his new-found confidence and boastfulness, shown at its worst in his brash advice to the Duke, leading directly to the discovery of his plans for eloping; and Proteus in his betrayal of both love and friendship. The sea journey has indeed left its mark on both men, and the names of Valentine and Proteus prove apt.
Furthermore, our estimation of the two gentlemen is not improved as the play progresses. Proteus, having exposed Valentine, proceeds with his plan to oust Thurio, and in this takes over from Valentine as the Duke's brash, worldly-wise advisor in matters of love. His single aim is to win Silvia, and dramatic interest is sustained as we become aware that he will go to any lengths to achieve it. There is little conflict in this part of the plot, however, as Proteus is now totally devoid of conscience in his pursuit of Silvia, and the Duke and Thurio are too stupid to see how they are being manipulated. Valentine, on the other
- 61 -
hand, takes up with what have to be the most enigmatic characters of the play, a band of outlaws, which Charlton took great delight in reducing to the absurdity of Gilbert's comic operatic pirates. 2.19 Charlton assumed that we were meant to take the outlaws seriously, but in this he was surely mistaken: much of their dialogue is comic, and the ridiculous contradictions in their various claims and modes of behaviour cannot be anything but deliberate on Shakespeare's part. Despite the comic use of 'stand' and 'sit' (IV.i.3 and 4) as commands preparatory to robbing, the outlaws ought to present a serious threat of violence to Valentine and Speed, and Speed is clearly apprehensive; but when Valentine prepares to remonstrate with the attackers, he is comically interrupted, and the tension is relieved at once:
Sp.
Sir we are vndone; these are the Villaines
That all the Trauailers doe feare so much.
Val.
My friends.
1.Out.
That's not so, sir: we are your enemies.
(IV.i.5-8)
A most important point should be noted here: the outlaws take themselves seriously, and everyone who comes into contact with them sees them as nothing less than conventional brigands, but the whole forest episode takes on the nature of parody. Violence is used by Shakespeare in establishing the comic nature of the outlaws in that they have been banished for violent acts such as abduction and murder, which they refer to as 'petty crimes' (IV.i.52); their treatment of Valentine is not unlike these earlier crimes, for once taken prisoner he is forced to be their leader (although he consents willingly) on pain of death:
1.Out.
But if thou scorne our curtesie, thou dyest.
2.Out.
Thou shalt not liue, to brag what we haue offer'd.
(IV.i.68-69)
Furthermore, although they 'detest such vile base practises' (IV.i.73) as molesting defenceless women, they do abduct Silvia, reassuring her the while that she will come to no harm; and Valentine tells the audience in soliloquy that he has 'much to doe | To keepe them from vnciuill outrages' (V.iv.16-17). They also abduct the Duke, who is nevertheless told by Valentine that they are 'endu'd with worthy qualities ... reformed, ciuill, full of good' (V.iv.151-154). It is only the audience who see the humour of these absurdities and contradictions, the function of which is to remove the last vestiges of reality from the action and
- 62 -
reduce it to a parody of comic romance conventions. The forest is where the greatest romantic excess is perpetrated (Valentine's surrendering of Silvia to Proteus), but it is also the Arcadia where all wrongs are righted, a fact established in Valentine's soliloquy which opens the final scene of the play:
This shadowy Desart, unfrequented woods,
I better brooke then flourishing peopled townes:
Here can I sit alone, unseene of any,
And to the Nightingales complaining Notes;
Tune my distresses, and record my woes.
(F2 V.iv.2-6)
Bonazza has pinpointed the cause of the dramatic failure of the outlaws, saying that 'the playwright is not emancipated enough from pseudo-reality to use out-and-out fantasy'; 2.20 in other words, the outlaws are not sufficiently fantastic by themselves to create the setting at which I think Shakespeare was aiming - one which would have made romantic excess more credible and dramatically acceptable, and such as he achieved later in A Midsummer Night's Dream.
With Valentine's banishment to the forest the fortunes of all the central characters reach their nadir: Valentine is separated from Silvia, Julia from Proteus; and Proteus has renounced both love and friendship in a vain attempt to court Silvia, although neither Valentine nor Julia knows this yet. All is ready for Julia to arrive in Milan and by her positive action change the course of events. We soon gather when she first appears that she has already learned of Proteus' perfidy and has come to witness it for herself by eavesdropping on the serenading of Silvia on Thurio's behalf. Her reactions are revealed in her discussion with the Host by means of a series of musical quibbles, and what is most striking here is Julia's realism: her emotions under very trying circumstances are finely controlled, and the absence of histrionics is a sure pointer to the fact that she is not a lover in the tradition of romance. We should also note the general absence of hostility on Julia's part, both towards her unfaithful lover and towards Silvia. This is made particularly noteworthy in Julia's second scene in Milan, where she has the difficult task of acting as Proteus' messenger to Silvia: her equanimity is achieved only with great personal restraint, and she finally decides on a compromise:
I am my Masters true confirmed Loue,
But cannot be true seruant to my Master,
Vnlesse I proue false traitor to my selfe.
Yet will I woe for him, but yet so coldly,
As (heauen knowes) I would not haue him speed.
(IV.iv.103-107)
Her latent hostility breaks forth in the final lines of the scene, where we see the sublimation of her violent wish to deface Silvia's portrait:
Ile vse thee kindly, for thy Mistris sake
That vs'd me so: or else by Ioue, I vow,
I should haue scratch'd out your vnseeing eyes,
To make my Master out of loue with thee.
(IV.iv.200-203)
Julia's faithfulness to Proteus and her resolution not to use violence despite the turmoil of her inner emotions wins our sympathy, and we come to realise that her quiet devotion is worth far more than the lauded Silvia's dalliance.
The denouement is set in motion when Silvia, aided by Eglamour, runs off to find Valentine, thus avoiding an enforced marriage to Thurio, and bringing the conflict centred on parental opposition to a head. She is followed by the Duke, Proteus, Thurio and Julia, and with all the principal characters in the forest, the potential for violence reaches its peak. Firstly, Silvia is captured by the outlaws, but as we have seen, they are essentially comic figures, and so little harm can be expected from them; indeed, when we next see Silvia, she is in far greater danger, having been rescued by Proteus. Her violent detestation of him is more apt than she realises:
Had I beene ceazed by a hungry Lion,
I would have been a break-fast to the Beast,
Rather then haue false Protheus reskue me.
(V.iv.33- 35)
Valentine watches as his friend tries unsuccessfully to woo Silvia, but when Proteus threatens to rape her, it is time for decisive action:
Ruffian: let goe that rude vnciuill touch,
Thou friend of an ill fashion.
(V.iv.60-61)
Once again, no violence ensues, as Proteus, quite overcome at being discovered in this most compromising act, is totally repentant, and Valentine accepts his repentance with a truly romantic gesture:
- 64 -
Who by Repentance is not satisfied,
Is nor of heauen, nor earth; for these are pleas'd:
By Penitence th' Eternalls wrath's appeas'd:
And that my loue may appeare plaine and free,
All that was mine, in Siluia, I giue thee.
(V.iv.79-83)
This remarkable offer derives from the story of Titus and Gisippus, told in Elyot's Boke Named the Gouernour: Gisippus hands over his lady to Titus in accordance with the romantic friendship code:
Here I renounce to you clerely al my title and interest, that I now haue or mought haue in the faire maieden. ... shortlye get you to bed, and putte your owne ryng on the maydens fynger, and vndo hir gyrdel of virginitee, and doe all other thyng, that shal be to your pleasure. 2.21
Peele's The Old Wiues Tale is an even more outrageous parody of romance conventions than the forest scenes of The Two Gentlemen of Verona, and at the end of Peele's play a similar demand is made by the Ghost of Jack on Eumenides, who is reminded 'you and I were partners' (Old Wives' Tale 892-893). As in the story of Titus and Gisippus, a virtue is made of sacrificing love for friendship, but Peele made the trial ridiculous by requiring the maid's life. The function of the offer made by Valentine is to restore amity between him and Proteus, in terms of romantic conventions. Valentine's offer is not nearly as explicit as that of Gisippus in the source, and, fortunately for dramatic credibility, Proteus, unlike Titus, does not accept the offer. Seen outside romantic conventions, Valentine's gesture is absurd; but such an assessment, outside the play's own terms of reference, is unfair. Within the context of the play, the offer merely dispels all possibility of conflict and mistrust between the men, but it fails dramatically because Shakespeare was not prepared to go to the lengths Peele had done, making the scene entirely comic; but nor could he restrict himself to the outmoded romance conventions found in Elyot. The violence offered to Silvia by Proteus is real enough, creating anxiety and dramatic tension, but this is not sustained once Valentine surrenders his beloved to his friend.
It is interesting to note that Valentine's faith in Proteus is now greater than Julia's. In order for Valentine's offer to have any dramatic significance, it must be genuine, with the possibility of
- 65 -
friendship between the men being re-established regardless of whether Proteus accepts Silvia or not. Apparently Julia thinks Proteus will accept the offer, for, when it is made, she exclaims 'Oh me vnhappy' (V.iv.84), and, presumably, swoons. Whether or not her swoon is deliberate, and whether or not the ensuing confusion over the rings is intentional, the end result is that Julia succeeds in winning back her Proteus. I think it in keeping with her character that she would dissemble, taking the necessary steps to displace Silvia from Proteus' affections.
Thus friendship and love are restored between the couples, but this has not been achieved without an unfortunate emphasis on the romantic portrayal of the two men. Perhaps Shakespeare sensed this, for the high drama of the denouement with the surrender of Silvia by Valentine is relieved by the comic tying up of two loose ends before the play draws to a close. The outlaws enter with their latest trophies, the Duke and Thurio, and the latter promptly claims Silvia as his own; Valentine responds with an excess of violence:
Thurio giue backe; or else embrace thy death:
Come not within the measure of my wrath:
Doe not name Siluia thine: if once againe,
Verona shall not hold thee: heere she stands,
Take but possession of her, with a Touch:
I dare thee, but to breath vpon my Loue,
(V.iv.124-129)
after which Thurio's 'I care not for her, I' (V.iv.130) is a comic anticlimax which reveals what should have been suspected by now - that he is reprehensibly faint-hearted and not worthy of Silvia anyway. Finally the outlaws, who have silently released their noble captives, receive pardons in view of the fact that they are
... reformed, ciuill, full of good,
And fit for great employment ....
(V.iv.154-155)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona is an attempt to use medieval romance literature on the stage, its main dramatic concern being to highlight the conflicting loyalties of love and friendship within the romance tradition. The three settings employed by Shakespeare serve as appropriate backgrounds for the action: in Verona the two gentlemen are on home ground and conflicts do not disrupt their friendship seriously; the sea journey to Milan separates them from their familiar environment,
- 66 -
placing them in a romantic world where their ideals of love and friendship are tried and found wanting; and the forest is an idealised world in which conflicts can be resolved and amity restored within the conventions of romance. Throughout the play contact with reality is maintained in the character of Julia, who alone is unaffected by the sea journey from Verona to Milan, thus managing to maintain equilibrium, behaving rationally even in the romantic worlds of Milan and the forest. It is Proteus who undergoes the most severe trials of inner conflict: Julia, Silvia and Valentine are never in any doubt as to whom they love and where their loyalties lie, whereas Proteus is torn between all three in his struggles with love and friendship. This is as it should be. The men went to Milan to further their education and worldly experience, and this they have done without even realising it. Proteus wins the better of the two women, as his testing, a process of initiation into true love, has been more telling than Valentine's.
- 84 -
- - - NOTES: CHAPTER TWO - - -
2.2 The edition cited is that of Adams. return
2.3 The edition cited is Edward Arber, ed., John Lyly, M.A.: Euphues, the Anatomy of Wit (Eidtio Princeps 1579); Euphues and His England (Editio Princeps 1580): Collated with Early Subsequent Editions, English Reprints (London: Constable, 1919), p.62. return
2.4 See, for example, George B. Parks, 'The Development of The Two Gentlemen of Verona', Huntington Library Bulletin, 11 (1937), 1-11, and William Shakespeare, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, ed. Clifford Leech (London: Methuen, 1981), pp.xv-xxxii. The line numbers in quotations are taken from this edition of the play. return
2.5 Walter Raleigh, ed., Johnson on Shakespeare: Essays and Notes Selected and Set forth with an Introduction, 1908; rpt (London: Oxford University Press, 1946), p.74. return
2.6 O.E.D., XIX, 406: 'Valentine ... sb. Also with lower-case initial ... 2. A person of the opposite sex chosen ... as a sweetheart, lover, or special friend ... a 1450'. return
2.7 Ibid., XII, 688: 'Proteus ... 2. ... a changing, varying, or inconstant person or thing. 1585'. return
2.8 Felix Guirand, ed., New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, trans. Richard Aldington and Delano Ames, rev. ed. (London: Hamlyn, 1977), p.147. return
2.9 The edition cited is Thomas Elyot, The Boke Named the Gouernour: Deuised by Sir Thomas Elyot Knyght (Londini: 1557), p.64v. return
2.10 Thomas A. Perry, 'Proteus, Wry-transformed Traveller', Shakespeare Quarterly, 5 (1954), 37-38; Perry cites uses of 'Proteus' with this specific Italianate connotation in the works of Marlowe, Drayton, Nashe, Davies, Hudson and Greene. return
2.11 See p.5 and p.44 n.1.17.; the inconsistence is the sea journey from Verona to Milan - it should, of course, be by land. return
2.12 William Leigh Godshalk, 'The Structural Unity of The Two Gentlemen of Verona', Studies in Philology, 66 (1969), 169. return
2.13 Freud, XV, 161. Freud quotes Shakespeare as an instance of this association:
- 85 -
... the dread of something after death,
The vndiscouered Countrey, from whose Borne
No Traueller returnes ....
(Hamlet III.i.78-80)
(The above line numbers are taken from William Shakespeare, Hamlet, ed. Harold Jenkins (London: Methuen, 1982).) return
2.14 Professor Ferguson points out that the sharing of this secret is an instance of the close bonding between the men. return
2.15 Leech, p.15 col.; neither John Dover Wilson, ed., The Complete Works of William Shakespeare: The Cambridge Text Established by John Dover Wilson for the Cambridge University Press, 1982; rpt (Leicester: Galley Press, 1987), nor Peter Alexander, ed., William Shakespeare: The Complete Works (London: Collins, 1966), inserts any stage direction at this point; Folio has no stage directions apart from massed entries and exits. return
2.16 Raymond Justin Hoole, 'The Dramatic Effect of Music, Song and Dance in Shakespeare's Comedies', diss., M.A. (University of South Africa, 1985), pp.14-16. return
2.17 I discuss the role of parental opposition more fully in the next chapter, pp.93-94, since it plays an important part in the plot of A Midsummer Night's Dream. return
2.18 Harold F. Brooks, 'Two Clowns in a Comedy (to Say Nothing of the Dog): Speed. Launce (and Crab) in The Two Gentlemen of Verona', Essays and Studies, 16 (1963), 93. return
2.19 H.B. Charlton, Shakespearian Comedy (London: Methuen, 1973), pp.36-40. return
2.21 Elyot, pp.126v-127r. See also p.137v, where Titus and Gisippus are cited among examples of 'excellente frendshypp', making the point that the sacrifice of love for friendship was accounted praiseworthy. The renunciation passage I have quoted is also cited by Bullough, I, 216. return
Proceed to Love's Labour's Lost