Many people (fays the editor in his preface to the laft "edition of this play) have imagined that the fudden change of ROMEO's love from ROSALINE to JULIET was a "blemish in his character: but SHAKESPEARE has dwelt particularly on it, and so great a judge of human nature "knew that to be young and inconftant was extremely natural.” But how ever the judgment of SHAKESPEARE may be impeached by small criticks, his invention ftands acquitted: for, if this change be a fault, he was led into it by BANDELLO, from whom he borrowed his ftory, and who dwells much more on it than our author. But "so great a judge of human nature” knew that this was not only a natural, but a necessary incident. He knew, indeed," to be 66 young and inconftant was extremely natural;" but he knew too, that the fire of love must be extinguished, except it be fed with fresh fuel, and that the cruelty of one mistress is a foil to the fondness of another. Nor in reality is there any inconftancy in forfaking one who flights your paffion, and fixing it on another who returns it; for constancy must of neceffity be mutual. With respect to the fuddenefs of the change, if any change is wrought, it must, at the moment it is wrought, be inftantaneous; for in fo violent a paffion as ROMEO's love for JULIET, and where their fouls fo entirely fymphathized, there was no room for cool deliberation and doubtful demur. And that this is a necessary incident, appears from the abfurdity which arifes from the alteration in queftion. ROMEO, we find as foon as he enters, is in love with JULIET. But how came he to be fo? He had seen her perhaps; but that he had never talked to her till the feast of the CAPULETS, at the end of the first act, appears from what she says in the garden-fcene afterwards: My ears have not yet drunk an hundred words Of that tongue's uttering, yet I know the found. And yet have the players reprefented him in the very first act fo deeply fmitten, as to feal into the covert of a wood, fhut up his windows, lock fair day light out, &c. Again, Again, by representing ROMEO fo much enamour'd of JULIET before they actually meet on the ftage, half the pathos is loft, and we are but half prepared for the confequent diftrefs. We are easy on ROMEO's account, we know he is already wounded, captus eft, habet, and we only feel for JULIET: whereas, according to SHAKESPEARE'S original, we are in pain for both the young lovers, watch every motion of their fouls, and partake in every turn of their paffions. By being the confidents of their love from the very beginning, we are interested in the unhappy iffue of it; and as we knew how much he had fuffer'd before from ROSALINE's difdain, we are now transported with his paffion for JULIET, rejoice with him in a return of her affection, and lament with him in being seperated from her. I fhall now proceed to point out a few mistakes (as they appear to me) in the other alterations, as well as in the performance of this play, without entering into a particular examen of the whole. The next material objection I have to offer is, with regard to the conduct of the actors in that scene wherein ROMEO takes his leave of JULIET. They are brought in tète à tète on the platform of the ftage; whereas in SHAKESPEARE they are supposed to converfe together from a window. I cannot conceive but that this is as convenient a fituation for both of them now, as it was for JULIET in the garden-fcene, where they first met. In SHAKESPEARE's original, ROMEO defcends from his miftrefs's window by a ladder of ropes : but by the present management, as he is made to walk off the stage coolly, a circumftance is destroyed, which (in our author) is noble, fublime, truly tragical, and the spirit of the ancients; a circumftance, which must have had the finest effect imaginable on the audience, and have prepared them for the catastrophe. It is as follows: while ROMEQ is defcending, JULIET cries, O heav'n! I have an ill-divining foul; I now I now come to the grand raree-fhow, at the end of the fourth act.But before I take notice of that ridiculous piece of pageantry, let me obfere that the players have omitted one of the grandeft thoughts, perhaps, which an inspired genius could conceive. This, forfooth, is removed for a common-place fentiment and hackney'd exclamation. Old CAPULET finding his daughter dead, (as he believ'd) addreffes himself to Count PARIS, who was that very morning to have married her, in this fpeech, as it ftands alter'd from the original: O fon, the night before thy wedding-day, Death has embrac'd thy wife: she, there she lies, O JULIET, oh my child, my child! Now the misfortune is, that the old father had ufed almost the fame expreffion not three lines before. Death lies on her, like an untimely froft But in SHAKESPEARE the lines ftand thus : Has death lain with thy wife: fee, there he lies DEATH IS MY SON-IN-LAW. Can any thing be grander than this laft hemiftich? There is a Our poet is particularly fond of these figurative expreffions. In this play we inay find several images fimilar to that of death is my fon-in-law. As for inftance, Affliction is enamour'd of thy parts, fo when ROMEO fees JULIET lying (as he thought dead) in the tomb, he expreffes his furprize at seeing her fo beautiful, in the following bold but juft fpeech, which is omitted at our playhouses: Why art thou yet fo fair ?-fhall I believe I now proceed to confider the grand funeral dirge, which is introduced in both houses with a rival magnificence and oftentation, of which I dont doubt but the managers took the hint from the concluding lines of the fourth act. Accordingly a long proceffion of monks, friers, &c. &c. &c. accompanied with musick, is made to pass over the stage. But, what end is all this farce and fhew to anfwer? If it be calculated to please the eye and ear-only, and not designed to have a proper tragical effect on the mind of the audience, nor contributes to the carrying on or denouement of the plot, it is abfurd, and ridiculous. This is really the cafe: for inftead of being affected with that seriousness, which a real funeral might produce, we must rather laugh at fo much pomp and expence beftowed on JULIET, whom we know is not dead, the frier and the audience being the only perfons in the fecret. In fhort, if there is any diftrefs ftirring, the candle-fnuffers and fcene-fhifters, who affifted as chief mourners, have it all to themselves. Before I conclude these remarks, I must confess that the additional scene in the last act, between the two lovers at the tomb is very happily imagined, and excites both pity and terrour, the two principal objects of tragedy. But the merit of it is chiefly due to OTWAY, who in his Caius Marius (founded on this drama) first gave the hint of it, and from whom the most striking paffages are directly borrowed. This the Editor might have had the honesty to own: for tho' he is pleafed to fay "the favourable reception it “ had met with from the publick induced the writer to print it,” any one who confults the abovementioned tragedy will fee he is little more than a bare tranfcriber. London, Oct. 20. 1750. THEATRICUS. 66 Written in Good-Wood gardens, in September, 1750. By Mr. L U N. I. E hills that overlook the plains, YE Where Wealth and Gothic Greatness reigns; "Where Nature's hand by Art is check'd, II. I faid when deareft of her kind III. But then-her voice-how fram'd t' endear! Vol. II. Numb. II. I, Ah |