INTRODUCTION.

It is certain that there was an English play upon the story of Romeo and Juliet before the year 1562; and the fact establishes that, even at that early date, our dramatists resorted to Italian novels, or translations of them, for the subjects of their productions. It is the most ancient piece of evidence of the kind yet discovered, and it is given by Arthur Brooke, who in that year published a narrative poem, called “The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet.” At the close of his address “to the Reader” he observes:—“Though I saw the same argument lately set forth on stage with more commendation than I can look for (being there much better set forth, than I have, or can do), yet the same matter, penned as it is, may serve the like good effect.” (Hist. of English Dramatic Poetry and the Stage, vol. ii. p. 416.) Thus we see also, that the play had been received “with commendation,” and that Brooke himself, unquestionably a competent judge, admits its excellence.

We can scarcely suppose that no other drama would be founded upon the same interesting incidents between 1562 and the date when Shakespeare wrote his tragedy, a period of, probably, more than thirty years; but no hint of the kind is given in any record, and certainly no such work, either manuscript or printed, has come down to us. Of the extreme popularity of the story we have abundant proof, and of a remote date. It was included by William Paynter in the “second tome” of his “Palace of Pleasure,” the dedication of which he dates 4th Nov. 1567; and in old writers we find frequent mention of the hero and heroine. Thomas Dalapeend gives the following brief “argument” in his “Pleasant Fable of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis,” 1565:—“A noble mayden of the cytye of Verona, in Italye, whyche loved Romeus, eldest sonne of the Lorde Montesche, and beinge pryvelye maryed togyther, he at last poysoned hym self for love of her: she, for sorowe of his deathe, slewe her selfe in the same tombe with hys dagger.” B. Rich, in his “Dialogue betwene Mercury and a Souldier,” 1574, says that “the pittifull history of Romeus and Julietta,” was so well known as to be represented on tapestry. It is again alluded to in “The Gorgeous Gallery of Gallant Inventions,” 1578; and in “A Poore Knight his Palace of Private Pleasure,” 1579. Austin Saker's “Narbonus,” 1580, contains the subsequent passage:—“Had Romeus bewrayed his

mariage at the first, and manifested the intent of his meaning, he had done very wisely, and gotten license for the lives of two faithful friends.” After this date the mention of the story becomes even more frequent, and sometimes more particular; and our inference is, that it owed part of its popularity, not merely to printed narratives in prose or verse, nor to the play spoken of by Brooke in 1562, but to subsequent dramatic representations, perhaps, more or less founded upon that early drama.

How far Shakespeare might be indebted to any such production we have no means of deciding; but Malone, Steevens, and others have gone upon the supposition, that Shakespeare was only under obligations either to Brooke's poem, or to Paynter's novel; and least of all do they seem to have contemplated the possibility, that he might have obtained assistance from some foreign source.

Arthur Brooke avowed that he derived his materials from Bandello (Part ii. Nov. 9), La sfortunata morte di due infelicissimi Amanti, &c.; and Paynter very literally translated Boisteau's Histoire de deux Amans, &c., in the collection of Histoires Tragiques, published by Belle-forest. Both Brooke's poem and Paynter's prose version have recently been reprinted in a work called “Shakespeare's Library,” where the antiquity of the story is considered. Steevens was disposed to think that our great dramatist had obtained more from Paynter than from Brooke, while Malone supported, and, we think, established, a contrary opinion. He examined a number of minute points of resemblance; but, surely, no doubt can be entertained by those who only compare the following short passage from a speech of Friar Laurence with three lines from Brooke's “Romeus and Juliet.”

This, as will be seen from what is subjoined, is almost verbally from Brooke's poem:—

Shakespeare's “Romeo and Juliet” originally came out, but in an imperfect manner, in 1597, quarto. This edition is in two different types, and was probably executed in haste by two different printers. It has generally been treated as an authorised impression from an authentic manuscript. Such, after the most careful examination, is not our opinion. We think that the manuscript used by the printer or printers (no bookseller's or stationer's name is placed at the bottom of the title-page) was made up, partly from

portions of the play as it was acted, but unduly obtained, and partly from notes taken at the theatre during representation. Our principal ground for this notion is, that there is such great inequality in different scenes and speeches, and in some places precisely that degree and kind of imperfectness, which would belong to manuscript prepared from defective short-hand notes. As Steevens printed the first and the third edition of “Romeo and Juliet” in his “Twenty Quartos,” a comparison, to test the truth of our remark, may be readily made. We do not of course go the length of contending that Shakespeare did not alter and improve the play, subsequent to its earliest production on the stage, but merely that the quarto, 1597, does not contain the tragedy as it was originally represented. The second edition was printed in 1599, and it professes to have been “newly corrected, augmented, and amended:” the third dated edition appeared in 1609; but some copies without a date are known, which most likely were posterior to 1609, but anterior to the appearance of the folio in 1623. The quarto, 1637, is of no authority.

The quarto, 1609, was printed from the edition which came out ten years earlier; and the repetition, in the folio of 1623, of some decided errors of the press, shows that it was a reprint of the quarto, 1609. It is remarkable, that although every early quarto impression contains a Prologue, it was not transferred to the folio. The quarto, 1597, has lines not in the quartos, 1599, 1609, nor in the folio; and the folio, reprinting the quarto, 1609, besides ordinary errors, makes several important omissions. Our text is that of the quarto, 1599, compared, of course, with the quarto, 1609, and with the folio of 1623, and in some places importantly assisted by the quarto of 1597. Of the value of this assistance, as regards particular words, we will only give a single instance, out of many, from Act iii. sc. 1, where Benvolio, in reference to the conflict between Mercutio and Tybalt, says of Romeo,
“His agile arm beats down their fatal points.” The quartos, 1599 and 1609, and the folio of 1623, absurdly read “aged arm;” and the editor of the folio of 1632 substituted “able arm:” the true word, for which no substitute equally good could be found, is only in the quarto, 1597.

It will be observed that on the title-page of the quarto, 1597, it is stated that “Romeo and Juliet” was acted by the players of Lord Hunsdon; and hence Malone argued that it must have been first performed and printed between July, 1596, and April, 1597. The company to which Shakespeare was attached called themselves “the servants of the Lord Chamberlain.” Henry Lord Hunsdon died Lord Chamberlain on 22nd July, 1596, and his son George succeeded to the title, but not to the office, which, in August, was conferred

upon Lord Cobham. Lord Cobham filled it until his death in March subsequent to his appointment, very soon after which event George Lord Hunsdon was made Lord Chamberlain. It seems that the theatrical servants of Henry Lord Hunsdon, Lord Chamberlain, did not, on his decease, transfer their services to his successor in office, Lord Cobham, but to his successor in title, George Lord Hunsdon, and called themselves the servants of that nobleman in the interval between the death of his father on 22nd July, 1596, and 17th April, 1597, when he himself became Lord Chamberlain. Malone concludes that in this interval, while those players who had been the servants of the Lord Chamberlain called themselves the servants of Lord Hunsdon, “Romeo and Juliet” was first performed and printed; and that, in consequence, the title-page of the first edition states, that it had been played by “the L. of Hunsdon his servants.”

The answer that may be made to this argument is, that though the tragedy was printed in 1597, as it had been acted by Lord Hunsdon's servants, it does not follow that it might not have been played some years before by the same actors, when calling themselves the Lord Chamberlain's servants. This is true; and it is not to be disputed that there is an allusion in one of the speeches of the Nurse (Act i. sc. 3) to an earthquake which, she states, had occurred eleven years before:—

It has been supposed that this passage refers to the earthquake of 1580, and, consequently, that the play was written in 1591. However, those who read the whole speech of the Nurse cannot fail to remark such discrepancies in it as to render it impossible to arrive at any definite conclusion, even if we suppose that Shakespeare intended a reference to a particular earthquake in England. First, the Nurse tells us, that Juliet was in a course of being weaned; then, that she could stand alone; and, thirdly, that she could run alone. It would have been rather extraordinary if she could not, for even according to the Nurse's own calculation the child was very nearly three years old. No fair inference can, therefore, be drawn from the expression, “'Tis since the earthquake now eleven years,” and we coincide with Malone that the tragedy was probably written towards the close of 1596^{1 note}.

Another trifling circumstance may lead to the belief that “Romeo and Juliet” was not written, at all events, until after 1594. In Act ii. (not Act iii., as Malone states) there is an allusion, in the words of Mercutio—“a gentleman of the very first house—of the first and second cause,”—to a work on duelling, called “Vincentio Saviolo his Practise.” That book was first printed in 1594, and again in 1595, and the issue of the second impression might call Shakespeare's attention to it just before he began “Romeo and Juliet.” We have already seen “Vincentio Saviolo his Practise” more particularly referred to in “As You Like It,” Vol. iii. p. 95. We place little reliance upon the allusion in “Romeo and Juliet,” because “the first and second cause” are also mentioned in “Love's Labour's Lost,” (Vol. ii. p. 299.) though the passage may, like some others, have been an insertion just prior to Christmas, 1598.

Malone hastily concluded from a reference in Marston's Satires, that Shakespeare's “Romeo and Juliet” was acted at the Curtain Theatre, in Shoreditch; but we can be by no means sure that Marston, by the terms “Curtain plaudities,” did not mean applauses at any theatre, for all had “curtains,” and we have no trace that any other of our great dramatist's plays was acted at the Curtain. The subject must have been a favourite with the public, and it is more than probable that rival companies had contemporaneous plays upon the same story. (See the Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, p. 19.) To some piece formed upon the same incidents, and represented at the Curtain Theatre, Marston may have referred.

It is remarkable that in no edition of “Romeo and Juliet,” printed anterior to the publication of the folio of 1623, do we find Shakespeare's name upon the title-page. Yet Meres, in his Palladis Tamia, had distinctly assigned it to him in 1598; and although the name of the author might be purposely left out in the imperfect copy of 1597, there would seem to be no reason, especially after the announcement by Meres, for not inserting it in the “corrected, augmented, and amended” edition of 1599. But it is wanting even in the impression of 1609, although Shakespeare's popularity must then have been at its height. “King Lear,” in 1608, had been somewhat ostentatiously called “M. William Shake-speare, his, &c. Life and Death of King Lear;” and his Sonnets, in 1609, were recommended to purchasers, as “Shake-speare's Sonnets,” in unusually large characters on the title-page.

1 ^note.

DRAMATIS PERSONÆ ESCALUS, Prince of Verona. PARIS, a young Nobleman, Kinsman to the Prince. MONTAGUE, Head of a House hostile to the Capulets CAPULET, Head of a House hostile to the Montagues Uncle to Capulet [Old Man]. ROMEO, Son to Montague. MERCUTIO, Kinsman to the Prince, and Friend to Romeo. BENVOLIO, Nephew to Montague, and Friend to Romeo. TYBALT, Nephew to Lady Capulet. FRIAR LAURENCE [Friar Lawrence], a Franciscan. FRIAR JOHN, of the same Order. BALTHASAR, Servant to Romeo. SAMPSON, Servant to Capulet. GREGORY, Servant to Capulet. PETER, Another Servant to Capulet. ABRAM [Abraham], Servant to Montague. An Apothecary. Three Musicians. CHORUS. Boy; Page to Paris; an Officer. LADY MONTAGUE, Wife to Montague. LADY CAPULET, Wife to Capulet. JULIET, Daughter to Capulet. Nurse to Juliet. Citizens of Verona; male and female Relations to both Houses; Maskers, Guards, Watchmen, and Attendants. [Citizen 1], [Servant], [Servant 1], [Servant 2], [Musician 1], [Musician 2], [Musician 3], [Musician], [Watch 1], [Watch 2], [Watch 3] SCENE, during the greater Part of the Play, in Verona: once, in the fifth Act, at Mantua.

ROMEO AND JULIET.

PROLOGUE. CHORUS^{1 note}











.
Two households, both alike in dignity,
  In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
  Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
  A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whose misadventur'd piteous overthrows
  Do, with their death^{2 note}, bury their parents' strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
  And the continuance of their parents' rage,
Which, but their children's end, nought could remove,
  Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.

Next section