A Narrative of Revision Documents of Performance and the Theatrical Abridgment Theory in Romeo and Juliet

Abstract

One question lies at the heart of Shakespeare editorial studies: if multiple versions of a play were printed within his lifetime, how can we know what best represents Shakespeare’s true vision? This concern is particularly contentious with Romeo and Juliet. A wealth of evidence suggests that the traditionally condemned first “bad quarto” of the play (Q1) was in fact an abridgment for the stage, adapted from the second “good quarto” (Q2). Yet, the theatrical abridgment theory has struggled to gain universal acceptance and the term “bad quarto” remains a popular classification. This is due to the difficulty in identifying Shakespeare’s hand in revision; early modern theatre was collaborative in nature and extant playbooks represent not only the playwright’s artistry but the accumulation of entire industries of production and printing. By engaging with recent scholarship on the presence of theatrical documentation in early plays, this essay will identify the narrative of abridgment from Q2 to Q1. The revisions in four of the play’s theatrical elements will be analysed within this scholarly context: the extirpation of unessential lines, the careful construction of stage directions, the formulation of locales, and attempts to control the unpredictable extemporising of the company’s resident clown William Kemp