“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’sR&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…