INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. STATE OF THE TEXT, AND CHRONOLOGY, OF ROMEO AND JULIET. ' ROMEO AND JULIET' was first printed in the year 1597, under the following title: An excellent conceited Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet. As it hath been often (with great applause) plaid publiquely, by the right honourable the L. of Hunsdon his Seruants.' This edition, a copy of which is of great rarity and value, was reprinted by Steevens, in his collection of twenty of the plays of Shakspere. The second edition of Romeo and Juliet' was printed in 1599, under the following title:- -The most excellent and lamentable Tragedie, of Romeo and Juliet. Newly corrected, augmented, and amended: As it hath bene sundry times publiquely acted, by the right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants.' This edition is also rare; but we have had the advantage of using a copy in the British Museum. The subsequent original editions are, an undated quarto; a quarto in 1607; a quarto in 1609, which has also been reprinted by Steevens; and the folio of 1623. All these editions are founded upon the quarto of 1599, from which they differ very slightly. We have taken the folio of 1623 as the basis of our text, indicating the differences between that text and the quartos subsequent to that of 1597, whenever any occur. But we have not attempted to make up a text, as was done by Pope, and subsequently by Steevens, out of the amended quarto of 1599 and the original of 1597. In some instances, indeed, the quarto of 1597 is of importance in the formation of a text, for the correction of typographical errors, which have run through the subsequent editions. Wherever our text differs from that commonly received, we state the difference, and the reasons for that difference. Our general reasons for founding the text upon the folio of 1623, which is, in truth, to found it upon the quarto of 1599, are as follows: The quarto of 1599 was declared to be "newly corrected, augmented, and amended." There can be no doubt whatever that the corrections, augmentations, and emendations were those of the author. There are typographical errors in this edition, and in all the editions, and occasional confusions of the metrical arrangement, which render it more than probable that Shakspere did not see the proofs of his printed works. But that the copy, both of the first edition and of the second, was derived from him, is, to our minds, perfectly certain. We know of nothing in literary history more curious or more instructive than the example of minute attention, as well as consummate skill, exhibited by Shakspere in correcting, augmenting, and amending the first copy of this play. We would ask, then, upon what canon of criticism can an editor be justified in foisting into a copy, so corrected, passages of the original copy, which the matured judgment of the author had rejected? Essentially the question ought not to be determined by any arbitrement whatever other than the judgment of the author. Even if his corrections did not appear, in every case, to be improvements, we should be still bound to receive them with respect and deference. We would not, indeed, attempt to establish it as a rule implicitly to be followed, that an author's last corrections are to be invariably adopted; for, as in the case of Cowper's Homer,' and Tasso's Jerusalem,' the corrections which these poets made in their first productions, when their faculties were in a great degree clouded and worn out, are properly considered as not entitled to supersede what they produced in brighter and happier hours. Mr. Southey has admirably stated the reason for this in the advertisement to his edition of Cowper's Homer.' But in the case of Shakspere's Romeo and Juliet,' the corrections and augmentations were made by him at that epoch of his life when he exhibited "all the graces and facilities of a genius in full possession and habitual exercise of power." ?? * The augmentations, with one or two very trifling exceptions, are amongst the most masterly passages in the whole play, and include many of the lines that are invariably turned to, as some of the highest examples of poetical beauty. These augmentations, further, are so large in their amount, that, in Steevens's reprint, the first edition occupies only seventy-three pages; while the edition of 1609, in the same volume, printed in the same type as the first edition, occupies ninety-nine pages. The corrections are made with such exceeding judgment, such marvellous tact, that of themselves they completely overthrow the theory, so long submitted to, that Shakspere was a careless writer. We have furnished abundant evidence of this in our foot-notes, in which we have exhibited some of the more re* Coleridge's Literary Remains.' 6 6 markable of the amended passages, and have indicated the most important augmentations. Such being the case, we consider ourselves justified in treating the labour of Steevens and other editors, in making a patchwork text out of the author's first and second copies, as utterly worthless; and we have, therefore, in nearly every instance, rejected the passages from the first copy which these editors, to use their own word, have recovered to swell out the second copy, as mere surplusage which the author had himself rejected. We have, of course, indicated these changes from the commonly received text; but we will just present one example here, and we purposely select a familiar one. In the scene where the Nurse and Peter encounter Romeo and his friends in the street, their first words are thus given in the editions of Johnson and Steevens, of Reed, and of Malone, and are copied, of course, in all the popular editions: "Nurse. Peter! Peter. Anon! Nurse. My fan, Peter. Mercutio. Prithee, do, good Peter, to hide her face." 66 In Shakspere's own corrected edition of 1599 there is no prithee, do." How comes it, then, into Johnson and Steevens? Through an adulteration of two texts. In the original copy of 1597, the Nurse, instead of "Peter, my fan," says, "Peter, prithee give me my fan," and Mercutio, in raillery, adds, "Prithee do, good Peter." Each of Shakspere's own readings is obviously good; but the mixing up of the two readings by the modern editors is obviously nonsense. But this is not all that Steevens has "recovered" in the matter of this fan. In the first copy the scene concludes with, "Nurse. Peter, take my fan and go before." In the second copy, Shakspere wisely thought that it was enough to make the people laugh once at Peter and the fan, and he, therefore, substitutes for the above line, "Nurse. Before and apace.” 66 re The modern editors do not agree with Shakspere, and they cover" out of the first quarto the line which Shakspere rejected. But enough of this. We have no wish to depreciate the labours of our predecessors. We thoroughly agree with Southey, that, though in their cumbrous annotations the last labourer always added more rubbish to the heaps which his predecessors had accumulated, they did good service by directing attention to our earlier 66 literature." 99* We most readily acknowledge our own particular obligations to them; for, unless they had collected a great mass of materials, the present edition could not have been undertaken. But we, nevertheless, cannot conceal our opinion, that as editors they were rash, and as critics they were cold and unimaginative; and we hold it to be the highest duty to attempt to undo what they have done, when they approach their author, as in their manufacture of a text for Romeo and Juliet,'" without reverence." lieve, as they did not, "that his own judgment is entitled to more respect than that of any or all his critics;"† and we shall attempt to vindicate that judgment on every occasion, upon the great principle laid down by Bentley :-"The point is not what he might have done, but what he has done.” We be In attempting to settle the CHRONOLOGY of Shakspere's plays, there are, as in every other case of literary history, two species of evidence to be regarded—the extrinsic and the intrinsic. Of the former species of evidence we have the one important fact that a Romeo and Juliet,' by Shakspere, however wanting in the completeness of the Romeo and Juliet' which we now possess, was published in 1597. The enumeration of this play, therefore, in the list by Francis Meres, in 1598, adds nothing to our previous information. In the same manner, the mention of this play by Marston, in his tenth satire, first published in 1599, only shows us how popular it was :— The " "Luscus, what's play'd to-day? i' faith, now I know; I see thy lips abroach, from whence doth flow 6 "The corrected, amended, and augmented" copy of Romeo and Juliet' was printed in 1599; and as Marston's tenth satire did not appear in his Three Books of Satires,' first printed in 1598, it is by no means improbable that his mention of the play referred to the improved copy which was in that year being acted by Lord Chamberlain his servants." We might here dismiss the extrinsic evidence; but Malone thinks, contrary to his original opinion of the date of the play, that the statement in the title-page of the original quarto, “that it had been often (with great applause) plaid publiquely by the right honourable Lord Hunsdon his servants," decides that it was first played in 1596. His reasons are these-Henry Lord Hunsdon, and George Lord Hunsdon his son, each filled the office of Lord Chamberlain under Elizabeth. * Life of Cowper, vol. ii. p. 178. Southey (speaking of Cowper). Henry, the father, died on the 22nd of July, 1596. Shakspere's company, during the life of this lord, were called "the Lord Chamberlain's men;" but, according to Malone, they bore this designation, not as being attached to the Lord Chamberlain officially, but as the servants of Lord Hunsdon, whose title, as a nobleman, was merged in that of his office. George Lord Hunsdon was not appointed Lord Chamberlain till April, 1597; and in the interval after the death of his father his company of comedians were not the Lord Chamberlain's servants, but Lord Hunsdon's servants. This, no doubt, is decisive as to the play being performed before George Lord Hunsdon; but it is not in any degree decisive as to the play not having been performed without the advantage of this nobleman's patronage. The first date of the printing of any play of Shakspere goes a very short way to determine the date of its theatrical production. We are very much in the dark as to the mode in which a play passed from one form of publication, that of the theatre, into another form of publication, that of the press. It is no evidence to our minds, that, because the Romeo and Juliet first printed in 1597 is stated to have been publicly acted by the Lord Hunsdon his servants, it was not publicly acted long before, under circumstances that would appear less attractive in the bookseller's title-page. Of the positive intrinsic evidence of the date of Romeo and Juliet,' the play, as it appears to us, only furnishes one passage, to which we shall presently more particularly advert. Chalmers has, indeed, given three passages from Daniel's Complaint of Rosamond,' first printed in 1592, which appear a little like imitations either of Daniel by Shakspere, or of Shakspere by Daniel. Malone has also given another passage from the old comedy of Doctor Dodipoll,' which has some similarity to the speech of Juliet, "Take him and cut him out in little stars." If the Romeo and Juliet' were produced before these pieces, which we believe, the resemblances would not be close enough to justify us in saying that their authors borrowed from Shakspere; and they consequently have as little weight with us to fix the date of the play after their production. The one piece of intrinsic evidence to which we have referred is this. The Nurse, describing the time when Juliet was weaned, says, "On Lammas-eve at night shall she be fourteen ; VOL. VII. T |