Can I demand.
Montague. But I can give thee more;
For I will raise her statue in pure gold,
That whiles Verona by that name is known,
There shall no figure at such rate° be set
As that of true and faithful Juliet.
Capulet. As rich shall Romeo’s by his lady’s lie—
Poor sacrifices of our enmity!
280 made your master was your master doing 284 by and by soon 289 therewithal therewith 294 winking at closing eyes to 295 brace pair (i.e., Mercutio and Paris) 297 jointure marriage settlement 301 rate value
Prince. A glooming° peace this morning with it brings.
The sun for sorrow will not show his head.
Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things;
Some shall be pardoned, and some punishèd;
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Juliet and her Romeo.
[Exeunt omnes.]
FINIS
305 glooming cloudy
Textual Note
The First Quarto (Q1) of Romeo and Juliet was printed in 1597 without previous entry in the Stationers’ Register. It bore the following title page: “An/ EXCELLENT/ conceited Tragedie/ OF/ Romeo and Iuliet./ As it hath been often (with great applause)/ plaid publiquely, by the right Ho-/ nourable the L. of Hunsdon/ his Seruants./ LONDON,/ Printed by Iohn Danter./ 1597.” Until the present century, editors frequently assumed that this text, curtailed and manifestly corrupt, represented an early draft of the play. Most now agree that Q1, like the other “bad” Shakespeare quartos, is a memorial reconstruction; that is, a version which some of the actors (accusing fingers have been pointed at those who played Romeo and Peter) put together from memory and gave to the printer. The Second Quarto (Q2) was printed in 1599 with the following title page: “THE/ MOST/ EX-/ cellent and lamentable / Tragedie, of Romeo/ and Iuliet./ Newly corrected, augmented, and/ amended: As it hath bene sundry times publiquely acted, by the/ right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine/ his Seruants./ London/ Printed by Thomas Creede, for Cuthbert Burby, and are to/ be sold at his shop neare the Exchange./ 1599.” Apparently Q2 derives directly from the same acting version that is imperfectly reflected in the memorially reconstructed Q1, but it is based on a written script of the play rather than on actors’ memories. Q2, however, is the product of careless or hasty printing and does not inspire complete confidence. Lines that the author doubtless had canceled are sometimes printed along with the lines intended to replace them, and occasionally notes about staging appear which are probably the prompter’s, or possibly Shakespeare’s. Vexing matters like these, together with the fact that some speeches in Q2 are clearly based on Q1 (possibly the manuscript that provided the copy for most of Q2 was illegible in places), have caused editors to make at least limited use of Q1. The other texts of Romeo and Juliet have no claim to authority. The Second Quarto provided the basis for a Third Quarto (1609), which in turn served as copy for an undated Fourth Quarto and for the text in the Folio of 1623. A Fifth Quarto, based on the Fourth, appeared in 1637.
None of these texts—including the Second Quarto, upon which the present edition is based—makes any real division of the play into acts and scenes. (The last third of Q1 does have a rough indication of scene division in the form of strips of ornamental border across the page, and the Folio has at the beginning Actus Primus. Scena Prima, but nothing further.) The division used here, like that in most modern texts, derives from the Globe edition, as do the Dramatis Personae and the various indications of place. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized, a number of stage directions have been added (in square brackets), and speech prefixes have been regularized. This last change will be regretted by those who feel, perhaps rightly, that at least some of the speech prefixes of Q2 show how Shakespeare thought of the character at each moment of the dialogue. Lady Capulet, for example, is variously designated in the speech prefixes of Q2 as Wife, Lady, and sometimes Mother; Capulet is occasionally referred to as Father, and Balthasar as Peter; the First Musician of our text (4.5) is once called Fidler in Q2 and several times Minstrel or Minstrels. Other deviations (apart from obvious typographical errors) from Q2 are listed in the textual notes. There the adopted reading is given first, in italics, followed by a note in square brackets if the source of the reading is Q1; this is followed by the rejected reading in roman. Absence of a note in square brackets indicates that the adopted reading has been taken from some other source and represents guesswork at best. Apparently the editors of F as well as of Q3 and Q4 had no access to any authentic document.
In dealing with the troublesome stage direction at the end of 1.4, I have followed the solution adopted by H. R. Hoppe in his Crofts Classics edition (1947); and I have adopted the reading of “eyes’ shot” for the customary “eyes shut” at 3.2.49 from the Pelican edition of John E. Hankins (Penguin, 1960), which presents a good argument for retaining the reading of Q2 with the addition of an apostrophe.
1.1.29 in sense [Q1] sense 34 comes two [Q1] comes 65 swashing washing 123 drave driue 150 his is 156 sun same 182 well-seeming [Q1] welseeing 205 Bid a sick [Q1] A sicke 205 make [Q1] makes 206 Ah [Q1] A
1.2.32 on one 65-73 Signior . . . Helena [prose in Q1 and F] 92 fires fier
1.3.2-76 [Q2 prints Nurse’s speeches in prose] 66, 67 honor [Q1] houre 99 make it [Q1] make
1.4.7-8 Nor . . . entrance [added from Q1] 23 Mercutio Horatio 39 done [Q1] dum 42 of this sir-reverence [Q1] or saue you reuerence 45 like lights 47 five fine 53-91 O . . . bodes [verse from Q1; Q2 has prose] 57 atomies ottamie 63 film Philome 66 maid [Q1] man 113 sail [Q1] sute 114 s.d. They . . . and [Q2 combines with s.d. used here at beginning of 1.5]
1.5. s.d. [Q2 adds “Enter Romeo”] 1, 4, 7, 12 First Servingman . . . Second Servingman . . . First Servingman . . . First Servingman [Q2 has “Ser.,” “I.,” “Ser.,” and “Ser.”] 97 ready [Q1] did readie 144 What’s this? What’s this? Whats tis? whats tis
2.1.9 one [Q1] on 10 pronounce [Q1] prouaunt 10 dove [Q1] day 12 heir [Q1] her 38 et cetera [Q1] or
2.2.16 do to 20 eyes eye 45 were wene 83 washed washeth 99 havior [Q1] behauior 101 more cunning [Q1] coying 162 than mine then 167 sweet Neece 186 Romeo [Q1] Iu. 187-88 [between these lines Q2 has “The grey eyde morne smiles on the frowning night, / Checkring the Easterne Clouds with streaks of light, / And darknesse fleckted like a drunkard reeles, / From forth daies pathway, made by Tytans wheeles,” lines nearly identical with those given to the Friar at 2.3.1-4; presumably Shakespeare first wrote the lines for Romeo, then decided to use them in Friar Lawrence’s next speech, but neglected to delete the first version, and the printer mistakenly printed it]
2.3.2 Check’ring Checking 3 fleckèd [Q1] fleckeld 74 ring yet [Q1] yet ringing
2.4.18 Benvolio [Q1] Ro. 30 fantasticoes [Q1] phantacies 215 Ah A
2.5.11 three there
2.6.27 music’s musicke
3.1.2 are [Q1; Q2 omits] 91 s.d. Tybalt . . . flies [Q1; Q2 has “Away Tybalt”] 110 soundly too. Your soundly, to your 124 Alive [Q1] He gan 126 eyed [Q1] end 168 agile [Q1] aged 190 hate’s [Q1] hearts 194 I It
3.2.51 determine of determine 60 one on 72-73 [Q2 gives line 72 to Juliet, line 73 to Nurse] 76 Dove-feathered Rauenous doue-featherd 79 damnèd dimme
3.3. s.d. Enter Friar [Q1] Enter Frier and Romeo 40 But . . . banishèd [in Q2 this line is preceded by one line, “This may flyes do, when I from this must flie,” which is substantially the same as line 41, and by line 43, which is probably misplaced] 52 Thou [Q1] Then 61 madmen [Q1] mad man 73 s.d. Knock They knocke 75 s.d. Knock Slud knock 108 s.d. He . . . away [Q1; Q2 omits] 117 lives lies 143 misbehaved mishaued 162 s.d. Nurse . . . again [Q1; Q2 omits] 168 disguised disguise
3.5.13 exhales [Q1] exhale 36 s.d. Enter Nurse [Q1] Enter Madame and Nurse 42 s.d. He goeth down [Q1; Q2 omits] 54 Juliet Ro. 83 pardon him padon 140 gives giue 182 trained [Q1] liand
4.1.7 talked talke 72 slay [Q1] stay 83 chapless chapels 85 his shroud his
98 breath [Q1] breast 100 wanny many 110 In Is 110 [after this line Q2 has “Be borne to buriall in thy kindreds graue”; presumably as soon as Shakespeare wrote these words he decided he could do better, and expressed the gist of the idea in the next two lines, but the canceled line was erroneously printed] 111 shalt shall 116 waking walking
4.3.49 wake walke 58 Romeo, I drink [after “Romeo” Q2 has “heeres drinke,” which is probably a stage direction printed in error] 58 s.d. She . . . curtains [Q1; Q2 omits]
4.4.21 faith [Q1] father
4.5.65 cure care 82 fond some 95 s.d. casting . . . curtains [Q1; Q2 omits] 101 by [Q1] my 101 amended amended. Exit omnes 101 s.d. Peter [Q2 has “Will Kemp,” the name of the actor playing the role] 128 grief [Q1] griefes 129 And . . . oppress [Q1; Q2 omits] 135, 138 Pretty [Q1] Prates
5.1.11 s.d. booted [detail from Ql] 15 fares my [Q1] doth my Lady 24 e’en [Q1 “euen”] in 24 defy [Q1] denie 50 And An 76 pay [Q1] pray
5.3. s.d. with . . . water [Q1; Q2 omits] 3 yew [Q1] young 21 s.d. and Balthasar . . . iron [Q1; Q2 has “Enter Romeo and Peter,” and gives lines 40 and 43 to Peter instead of to Balthasar] 48 s.d. Romeo . . . tomb [Q1; Q2 omits] 68 conjurations [Q1] commiration 71 Page [Q2 omits this speech prefix] 102 fair [Q2 follows with “I will beleeue,” presumably words that Shakespeare wrote, then rewrote in the next line, but neglected to delete] 108 again. Here [between these words Q2 has the following material, which Shakespeare apparently neglected to delete: “come lye thou in my arme, / Heer’s to thy health, where ere thou tumblest in. / O true Appothecarie / Thy drugs are quicke. Thus with a kisse I die. / Depart againe”] 137 yew yong 187 too too too 189 s.d. Enter . . . wife [Q2 places after line 201, with “Enter Capels” at line 189] 190 shrieked [Q1] shrike 199 slaughtered Slaughter 209 more early [Q1] now earling
A Note on the Source of Romeo and Juliet
The story of Romeo and Juliet was popular in Elizabethan times, and Shakespeare could have got his working outline of it from a number of places. Belleforest’s Histoires Tragiques had a version, as did William Painter’s Palace of Pleasure; and there had apparently been a play on the subject. Arthur Brooke, in an address “To the Reader” prefaced to his long narrative poem The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet, mentioned seeing “the same argument lately set foorth on stage”; but there is no evidence that Shakespeare worked from an older play or even that he consulted Belleforest or Painter, though he undoubtedly knew their works. All the evidence indicates that he worked directly from Brooke’s poem, which Richard Tottell had printed in 1562 and Robert Robinson had reissued in 1587, shortly before the time that Shakespeare must have begun writing for the London stage.
Actually the story was popular, on the Continent at least, well before Elizabeth’s time. Leaving out of account such obvious but distant analogues as the stories of Hero and Leander, Aeneas and Dido, Pyramus and Thisbe, and Troilus and Cressida, the first version of the story was one that appeared in Masuccio Salernitano’s Il Novellino in 1476. This version had the clandestine lovers, the accommodating friar, the killing that led to the young man’s banishment, the rival suitor, sleeping potion, thwarted messenger, and unhappy conclusion, but no suicides. It might have passed into oblivion had it not been for Luigi da Porto’s Istoria novellamente ritrovata di due Nobili Amanti (published ca. 1530), which laid the scene in Verona and identified the feuding families as Montecchi and Capelletti and the lovers as Romeo and Giulietta. Da Porto’s story also named the friar Lorenzo and the slain man Thebaldo Capelletti and introduced the ball, the balcony scene, and the double suicide at the tomb. It was da Porto, moreover, who first named a minor character Marcuccio and gave him the icy hands that subsequent tellers of the tale regularly mentioned until Shakespeare discarded the detail and replaced it with a distinctive personality. Da Porto is also remembered for having Giulietta commit suicide by holding her breath—a detail which fortunately no one bothered to perpetuate.
Da Porto’s tale was widely imitated both in Italy and in France, but the version of most importance to readers of Shakespeare was that of Matteo Bandello, who put the story into his Novelle (1554). Of all the versions before Shakespeare’s, Bandello’s is generally considered the best. It is a plain, straightforward narrative, unmarred by the sentimentality and moralizing that characterized the work of some of his adapters. In Bandello’s story the masking appears; Peter is there (but as Romeo’s servant), the Nurse has a significant part in the plot, and the rope ladder comes into play. Almost as important is the version of Pierre Boaistuau (1559), adapted from Bandello, which was included in Belleforest’s Histoires Tragiques. Boaistuau made Romeo go to the ball in the hope of seeing his indifferent lady (the Rosaline of Shakespeare’s play), worked out the business of the Capulets’ restraint at discovering Romeo’s presence, and developed the dilemma that Juliet finds herself in when she first hears of Tybalt’s death; he also developed the character of the apothecary. All these things went into Painter’s version (1567), which was a translation of Boaistuau, and into Brooke’s, which was based on Boaistuau. The line of transmission from Masuccio to Shakespeare thus includes da Porto, Bandello, Boaistuau, and Brooke, in that order, with Painter standing unconsulted to one side. Shakespeare, however, used only Brooke directly and thus derived from the tradition only as much as Brooke passed on to him; but he borrowed freely from the great wealth of detail that Brooke himself had added.
Anyone interested in consulting Brooke’s version for himself will find it in the first volume of Geoffrey Bullough’s Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1957). In spite of the tedious poulter’s measure (iambic couplets in which the first line has twelve syllables and the second, fourteen) the poem is not entirely dull; and no other single source gave Shakespeare so much that was immediately useful. Readers should recognize at once the character and function of Benvolio (though Brooke neglected to give him a name), the Capulet that stormed at what he took to be his daughter’s willful disobedience and threatened her with incarceration and endless misery, the garrulous, amoral Nurse and her conversations with the young lovers, and the needy apothecary. They will even find the clue to Mercutio’s character (which Brooke did not develop) in the lines: “Even as a Lyon would emong the lambes be bolde, / Such was emong the bashfull maydes, Mercutio to beholde.” Numerous such hints, together with bits of business, suggestions for metaphors, and passages of dialogue, catch the eye as one scans Brooke’s lines, not so much because they are arresting in themselves but because they call to mind the use Shakespeare has made of them. And if one gets safely past Brooke’s “Address to the Reader,” with its heavy-handed condemnation of lust, disobedience, and superstitious friars, one finds that Brooke too treated the lovers with sympathy and allowed his friar the best of intentions. In fact, Brooke, having discharged himself of his Protestant moralizing in the “Address,” tended to make Fortune responsible for most things in the story; and Shakespeare, as we know, took Brooke’s Fortune along with all the rest.
What Shakespeare did with Brooke’s clean but relatively inert story was to add complication and focus, intensify it by drastic compression, and establish the intricate relationship of part to part in a texture of language that functions admirably as dialogue even as it creates the unity of a dramatic poem. In this transformation he made it possible for us to tolerate the Nurse, love Capulet, and pity the apothecary. He relieved the Friar of the tedium that Brooke had encumbered him with, and he changed Escalus into a man who genuinely suffers and commands sympathy. In bringing Tybalt to the ball and making him the discoverer of Romeo’s presence there, he gave real point to the disastrous street fight in Act 3; he also enlarged Paris’ part in the story and ennobled his character, and he created Mercutio. More important, he made all three of these serve as foils to a Romeo who develops and matures in response to the challenges they present and who, before the end, has ironically become responsible for the deaths of all three. Shakespeare’s real miracle, however, was Juliet, trans
formed from an adolescent arrogantly eager to outdo her elders to an appealing child-woman, barely fourteen, who learns to mix courage with her innocence, yet falls victim to a world that only briefly and unintentionally but fatally treats her as a plaything.
Commentaries
SAMUEL JOHNSON
From The Plays of William Shakespeare
This play is one of the most pleasing of our author’s performances. The scenes are busy and various, the incidents numerous and important, the catastrophe irresistibly affecting, and the process of the action carried on with such probability, at least with such congruity to popular opinions, as tragedy requires.
Here is one of the few attempts of Shakespeare to exhibit the conversation of gentlemen, to represent the airy sprightliness of juvenile elegance. Mr. Dryden mentions a tradition, which might easily reach his time, of a declaration made by Shakespeare, that “he was obliged to kill Mercutio in the third act, lest he should have been killed by him.” Yet he thinks him “no such formidable person, but that he might have lived through the play, and died in his bed,” without danger to the poet. Dryden well knew, had he been in quest of truth, that, in a pointed sentence, more regard is commonly had to the words than the thought, and that it is very seldom to be rigorously understood. Mercutio’s wit, gaiety, and courage, will always procure him friends that wish him a longer life; but his death is not precipitated, he has lived out the time allotted him in the construction of the play; nor do I doubt the ability of Shakespeare to have continued his existence, though some of his sallies are, perhaps, out of the reach of Dryden; whose genius was not very fertile of merriment, nor ductile to humor, but acute, argumentative, comprehensive, and sublime.From The Works of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. 9 vols. Oxford, 1825. This selection first appeared in The Plays of William Shakespeare (London, 1765).
Romeo and Juliet Page 20