“A Romeus by any other name…”
A brief survey of the R&J legend from da Porto to Shakespeare
My project in a nutshell
• Standing at the center of the traffic roundabout
where textual analysis, dramaturgy, and
performance history meet, I am examining some
of the original source texts that led to Shakespeare’s
“Romeo and Juliet.”
• For lack of a better descriptor, I am terming this a
“redaction analysis,” as in looking at story elements that
are in the original chain of sources versus what
Shakespeare ended up actually using, not using (or adding
to) in crafting his play.
• My goal (such as it is) to come up with speculations, or
more likely, speculative lines of inquiry, as to why
Shakespeare made the various choices that he did.
Redacting the redaction analysis
• Because we’re focusing on the cool stuff we
found during our research to order to keep it
under five minutes, I will present only the cool
stuff I’ve run across during the long, strange, and
twisty-turny trip this process has been.
• So, with that in mind, let us don our wind-swift Cupid
wings, as swift in motion as a ball, and move the
heavens to smile upon the children of a very idle
brain…
The R&J Chronology … Probably
(Much reduced for simplicity’s sake)
• The primary source for Shakespeare’s
R&J was Arthur Brooke’s “The Tragicall
historie of Romeus and Juliet” (1562),
with some elements also pulled from
William Painter’s “Palace of Pleasure”
(1566). Little is known about Brooke, but
I thought it interesting that he died in a
shipwreck off New Haven in 1563, a year
after his poem was published, and the
year before Shakespeare was born.
Nicely symmetrical, no?
• Brooke based his 3,020-line poem upon
a French translation by Pierre Boaistuau
(1559) of an Italian novella, “Giuletta e
Romeo” by Matteo Bandello (1554),
which in turn was a re-telling of Luigi da
Porto’s “Historia novellamente ritrovata
di due nobili amanti, or the "Newly
found story of two noble lovers."
Da Porto’s novello* and a sample page (note the Cupid!)
*a.k.a. Montecchi v. Cappelletti
Brooke’s “Tragicall historie of Romeus and Juliet”
“The Argument” of Romeus and Juliet
Love hath inflamèd twain by sudden sight,
And both do grant the thing that both desire
They wed in shrift by counsel of a friar.
Young Romeus climbs fair Juliet's bower by night.
Three months he doth enjoy his chief delight.
By Tybalt's rage provokèd unto ire,
He payeth death to Tybalt for his hire.
A banished man he 'scapes by secret flight.
New marriage is offered to his wife.
She drinks a drink that seems to reave her breath:
They bury her that sleeping yet hath life.
Her husband hears the tidings of her death.
He drinks his bane. And she with Romeus' knife,
When she awakes, herself, alas! she slay'th.
Thus we find some key differences twixt Romeus & Romeo
• Christmas In July? (The Feast of the Nativity v.
a feast a fortnight ‘fore Lammastide)
• “For ere the moon could thrice her wasted horns renew,
False Fortune cast for him, poor wretch, a mischief new to brew,”
(a.k.a. Romeus kills Tybalt the day after Easter – now, isn’t THAT interesting?)
• Mercutio (a.k.a. Marccucio “Frosty Hand” “Squinty-eyed” Guertio)
• Those five unnamed “Montague Boyz”
(Alas, poor Benvolio, we never knew you!)
• Did you know that in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, you can
legally marry at age 16 w/parental consent?
• A Balthasar by any other name is actually … a Peter? (but not THAT Peter)
• A few more are banishèd, one gets hung, and the Friar still gets off scot-free
(and retires to a hermitage to live out his days)
Which leads us finally to the Bard we know and love
And now to end with some meta-analysis…
Oh wait, one last thing…
So, the next time YOU visit Verona…