While the distinction is one that cannot be absolu drawn, the Introduction treats of questions relating the play as a whole, and the Notes treat of details. In Introduction, a comparatively large amount of space devoted to the previous versions of the story, as afford an unusually interesting example of literary evolut The Notes are intended as an aid both to understand and to appreciating the play; pains have been taken limit those with the former purpose to matters whic student really needs to know. Thus no minute accoun given of the "tassel-gentle" or of the game of "Du in the mire." In conclusion, the editor wishes to record his obl tions to his colleagues, Professor Martin W. Sampson, 1 fessor Lane Cooper, Professor Joseph Quincy Ada Jr., and Mr. Frederick M. Smith, who have aided with information, counsel, and encouragement. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, W. STRUNK, JE June 28, 1911. rs every uication OI being one of bose urreptitious copies" of which Shakespeare's the editors of the First Folio, complained, principled publishers at times issued, employreporters to take down the text in the theatre, ctors to furnish the words of their parts. Q1, ccasionally useful in giving the right reading uent early editions are incorrect, and is also ts stage-directions, which seem to have been he actual performance. The Second Quarto in 1599, and professing to give the play corrected, augmented, and amended," does ent a text which has undergone slight revision places, and apparently is an authorized publicorrect text. The Third Quarto (Q3), printed reprint of Q2. The First Folio (F1), of collective edition of Shakespeare's plays, reand Juliet from Q3. Q2 is thus the main the play in its final form, and its text is the present volume. The stage-directions of Q1 ed to supplement those of Q2; a few others, clearness, have been added in brackets. age of Q1 describes the tragedy as "often pplause) plaid publiquely by the L. of Hunsn his Servants.' 99 The company of actors to ich Shakespeare belonged was officially so uly, 1596, to April, 1597. The argument that ne, ""T is since the earthquake now eleven 23), enables us to fix the date of performance n years after a notable English earthquake, is incing. As Professor Dowden points out, the ploy play and spea T stor cont said and cipa as a nove and Lab sum You are a chara bring deal this terest famil dren tectio emoti filial play. this k 1 Va the Flo play as comparatively early, while its masterly construct and superb poetry prevent us from placing it among Sha speare's earliest works. The the Sto The plot of Romeo and Juliet belongs to that clas stories whose subject may be indicated by the phrase, contending against obstacles. The same may be said of nine tenths of the stories, poems, novels, Nature and plays ever written in which love is a principal concern. Unless love meets with obstacles, it is as a rule interesting to other people, and story-tell novelists, and dramatists aim to be interesting. Ag and again Shakespeare treated plots of this class: Lo Labour's Lost, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, A M summer Night's Dream, The Merchant of Venice, You Like It, and Twelfth Night, not to mention oth are all stories of love contending against obstacles. characterizing the plot a little more precisely, we bring it under a narrower division, that of stories wh deal with lovers separated by a family feud. A plo this nature obviously contains possibilities of great terest the striking contrast between the hatred of families and the love existing between two of their o dren; the secrecy of stolen interviews; the danger of tection, and the consequent suspense; perhaps the conflic emotions of a hero or heroine hesitating between love filial duty; perhaps, if the scene is appropriately laid, sw play, and a thrilling escape or a tragic death. Of storie this kind, Romeo and Juliet is by far the best known. 1 Vanity Fair (George Osborne and Amelia Sedley) and The M the Floss (Philip Wakem and Maggie Tulliver) deal with lovers se |