INTRODUCTION The Merchant of Venice was first published in 1600, Old Style, i.e. before the 25th of March 1601, when two editions appeared in quarto. Their title-pages are: The Excellent History of the Mer- | chant of Venice. With the extreme cruelty of Shylocke | the Iew towards the saide Merchant, in cut- | ting a iust pound of his flesh. And the obtaining of Portia, by the choyse of three Caskets; | Written by W. Shakespeare. [Printer's device] Printed by J. Roberts, 1600 The running title is:" The Comicall History of the Merchant of Venice." This is called the First Quarto. The most excellent | Historie of the Merchant | of Venice. With the extreame crueltie of Shylocke the lewe towards the sayd Merchant, in cutting a iust pound of his flesh: and the obtayning of Portia | by the choyse of three chests. As it hath been diuers times acted by the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants : Written by William Shakespeare. | [Printer's device] At London | Printed by I. R. for Thomas Heyes, | and are to be sold in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Greene Dragon. 1600. vii The running title is :-" The comicall Historie of the Merchant of Venice." This is called the Second Quarto. The initials of the printer, I. R., are believed to be those of James Roberts, as in the Second Quarto of Hamlet, 1604, etc. The corresponding entries in the Stationers' Register (Arber's Transcript, vol. iii. pp. 122 and 175) are: xxii Iulii [1598]. James Robertes, Entred for his copie under the handes of bothe the wardens, a booke of the Marchaunt of Venyce or otherwise called the Jewe of Venyce. PROVIDED that yt bee not prynted by the said James Robertes or anye other whatsoever without lycence first had from the Right honorable the lord Chamberlen. . . . vjd Thomas haies 28 octobris [1600]. Entred for his copie under the handes of the Wardens and by consent of master ROBERTES. A booke called the booke of the merchant of Venyce vjd It has been supposed that Roberts obtained "his copie by underhand means, and that he was forbidden to print without permission, partly because he had already been fined for issuing catechisms without authority, and partly because the play was known to belong to the Lord Chamberlain's Servants, ie. to Shakespeare's Company. Other conjectures are not wanting. For two years Roberts was assailed on one side by the terrors of a guilty conscience, on the other, |