know not if critics have ever compared them, or whether Schiller is
supposed to have had the English, or rather the Italian, Juliet in his
fancy when he portrayed Thekla; but there are some striking points of
coincidence, while the national distinction in the character of the
passion leaves to Thekla a strong cast of originality.

With regard to the termination of the play, which has been a subject
of much critical argument, it is well-known that Shakspeare, following
the old English versions, has departed from the original story of Da
Porta;[7] and I am inclined to believe that Da Porta, in making Juliet
waken from her trance while Romeo yet lives, and in his terrible final
scene between the lovers, has departed from the old tradition, and as
a romance, has certainly improved it: but that which is effective in
a narrative is not always calculated for the drama; and I cannot but
agree with Schlegel, that Shakspeare has done well and wisely
in adhering to the old story.[8] Can we doubt for a moment that
Shakspeare, who has given us the catastrophe of Othello, and the
tempest scene in Lear, might also have adopted these additional
circumstances of horror in the fate of the lovers, and have so treated
them as to harrow up our very souls--had it been his object to do so?
But apparently it was _not_. The tale is one,

Such, as once heard, in gentle heart destroys
All pain but pity.

[7] The "Giulietta" of Luigi da Porta was written about 1520. In
a popular little book published in 1565, thirty years before
Shakspeare wrote his tragedy, the name of Juliet occurs as an
example of faithful love, and is thus explained by a note in the
margin. "Juliet, a noble maiden of the citie of Verona, which