How old is Romeo? There’s a simple question. Sure, we all know Juliet is 13, because the nurse immediately tells us. And often, I think we then make the leap and assume that Romeo is also 13.
But that’s hardly true. Would that imply that Mercutio, Tybalt, and Paris are also all about 13? Surely it was the case that men simply chose younger wives (Capulet is much older than his wife, is he not?), and actually, we can assume that Romeo and the others are in what, maybe in late teens or early 20s?
It wouldn’t be a good idea to point out that age difference these days, of course. I can just imagine Romeo & Juliet being closed down because it promotes pedophilia or something. But honestly, I’m cool with it (the age difference, not the pedophilia!) The more I read the play, the more I appreciate that Juliet is the most mature person in it. That she’s 13, surrounded by people a generation older than her, is quite impressive. I don’t need to make her older to justify anything, and I don’t need to make Romeo younger to balance it out.
Romeo can be older and still be rash and impetuous. Juliet can be young and be the smart one. It’s better than trying to imagine 13-year-old Tybalt saying, “I hate the word as I hate Hell….”
But How Old Is Romeo?
The short answer is that Romeo’s age is never mentioned in the play’s text. Romeo is old enough to be running around in the streets of Verona with his friends. His father, Lord Montague, doesn’t even know where he is. That’s all we get to work with.
Did You Know?
I learned something interesting while looking at the trivia for Baz Luhrmann’s movie. Natalie Portman auditioned for the role of Juliet. But because of her small frame, in her words, “Leonardo looked like he was molesting me.” The director said the same thing I said above, only backward — “Leonardo was 21, but could look 18 – and she made him look 21.” In other words, he looked too old, not that she looked too young. So that certainly backs up the idea that you have to cast R&J of roughly equivalent ages to avoid squicking out your audience.
I have always read Romeo as being on the upper end of 15, or early 16. (Some of the arguments I’ve heard putting him toward 18 always seemed inexplicably “off.”) This way, he’s just young enough to be so wanton and so reckless with his sentiments (c.f., the Rosalind fiasco), but not quite old enough to have had enough experiences to jade him accordingly. Hope you don’t mind my commenting here. I enjoy your reframing of Shakie, which, as someone who taught Shakie for more years than he wishes to remember, is a rare thing indeed. Cheers & best.
Did it occur to anyone that Juliet might be older than Romeo? The whole he's not old enough to have a beard thing places him between 12-15. No more than a year younger or about a year or 2 older than Juliet in Shakespeare's version.
The nurses states ‘she hath not seen the change of fourteen years’, which means Juliet is 13. Romeo was certainly no younger than 16 as he is involved in sword fights and witty banter. He must also be older to correspond with the maturity and ages of Benvolio and Mercutio.
Boys back then very much could’ve been involved in sword fights and witty banter at ages 13 to 15??
Witty banter especially. Even nowadays – ppl start engaging in witty banter from 9 years old.
A 13 to 15 year old boy having a sword fight was not abnormal back then either
Thanks Doc! Nice to hear the encouragement. As a complete non-academic who basically reads and talks about Shakespeare for fun, I hold a deep seated insecurity that one day I’m going to say something stupid and all the people who do Shakespeare “for real” are going to laugh at me :).
Of course you’re welcome to comment here! I actively encourage it!
The Juliet in the original novel – Romeo and Guilietta – is eighteen. Why did Shakespeare reduce her age? What is the difference between casting a play now to casting a play from a small acting company in Shakespeare’s day? What were the realities of the London in which he existed? If anyone is interested in a few more facts and speculations visit my blog at: http://rogertudor.wordpress.com/
Originally (ie Shakespeare’s company) Romeo would have had a beard – and would have been played by a ‘mature’ actor – boys without beard were ‘sexless’.
Modern (i.e. post German Romantic) make him younger than he originally was.
a 21 year old would have been right – but suggestions of molestation to modern audiences wipe out the possibilities.
Interestingly, on stage, actors much older than 21 get away with the role.
why yes sir.. i read this because i have to in class.
I belive that shakie reduced juliet (or Gullieta)’s age because his plays were often based on italian culture and often included italian characters and at the the time it was common in italy for women/girls of a very young age to carry children and were seen more sexually mature than they were in england at the time and so ‘shakie’ maybe have been trying to make his plays more acurate, I apolagise if I seem stupid but please remember i am only a 14 year old who has just finished his yr9 S.A.T’s
You’re 14, and you just voluntarily dove into a conversation about Shakespeare’s intentions in making Juliet 13? I hardly think that makes you stupid. My memory of reading Romeo and Juliet at 14 was of being done with it as quickly as possible :). Thanks for the contribution!
I agree with you Duane. This kid is Far from stupid!!
Actually, girls often memorize large portions of the play in junior high – because it’s ‘young love’ lol & because of the films. In my day it was the Zeffirelli film, in my daughters’ it was Leonardo DiCaprio’s. My youngest, bless her heart, who was NOT a reader, knew all of Juliet’s dialogue by heart.
I’ve taught Jr HS English & seen this happen LOL It’s GREAT because it draws kids into Shakespeare 😀
i've just been doing R&J in school and my teacher said she'd been researching the play and found that he was seventeen sorri if i sound a geek or moody or anything i don't mean to
XxLoUxX
xAge 14X
I think it's awfully creepy that Juliet was like 13.
My little sister is very mature for her age but it makes my heart sick to think of her in a similar situation of Juliet.
It's also really creepy how Mary (of the bible) was my age and she's all like 'yeah i trust you angel person-knock me up god!'
Now I realize that the women of the past had to grow up much faster than the women of the present, who are generally sheltered and live at home until they become 18.
So don't get me wrong-I love r&j as much as the next person-but I picture Juliet at about the age of 16-17 (still really young, but at least not a teenie-bopper) and romeo at about 20-21.
That's just my take.
Take into consideration that ppl In the Bible days, at least around Mary’s time, didn’t live as long as ppl today. If they made it past 40 they were very fortunate. And if you think about God “knocks up” every woman.
Actually im doing Romeo and Juliet at school right now and in the book it says she is 13 and he is 26, in those days it was expected for the man to be twice the age as the girl. (it was just tradition)
Then you have a bad book, Rachel, if it makes statements like that :). The truth is, Shakespeare didn’t say — therefore nobody knows. Everything else is just somebody’s guess, no matter how well researched.
He can’t be too old because (and i quote)
“One Romeus, who was of race a Montague,
Upon whose tender chin, as yet, no manlike beard there grew,
Whose beauty and whose shape so far the rest did stain”
obviously he had not reached puberty yet (no beard yet)
Not having a beard doesn’t mean you haven’t reached puberty, it means you haven’t reached the end stages. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_hair
I began puberty when I was in 5/6th grade, and didn’t even begin needing shaving for quite some time.
For males, Beards come out anytime between 17 – early 20s, while puberty can begin between 11yo – 13 yo.
But you are not quote Shakespeare there, you are quoting Brooke:
http://books.google.com/books?id=nFUOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=one+romeus+who+was+of+race+montague&source=bl&ots=FK-PXNWyHS&sig=1EpyV0wcsK5PZ-NmtFm6RKnT5AU&hl=en&ei=N2_ZSZLmEIeclAfjw-jFDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR58,M1
Shakespeare changed lots of things, what's to say he didn't change Romeo's age?
I agree with Dr J- I like to think of Romeo as being in the 15-16-17 range. I am a vehement supporter of age-appropriate actors to play R&J…It's sickening to see 20 year olds playing Juliet. I'm 14, so I'm starting to worry that I'll never be able to play Juliet…
Your name is Mimi and in a book called Saving Juliet, the main character Mimi, plays Juliet all her life.
Just been reading through some of the comments on Juliets age and Romeo and Juliets marriage…
I've been doing a lot of research for an essay I have to write on the topic and one source (Cambridge Introduction to Shakespeare by Emma Smith) said that although most people presume that marriage at that age was a normal thing to do it wasn't. having the couple married so young was unusual and holds some sort of significance and probably would have weirded out audiences at the time. its also important to note that all other accounts of a Romeo and Juliet saga extend over a number of accounts and shakespeare has compressed this to under a week depending on what resource you listen to. In other accounts the pair have time to fall in love however for our R & J its instant which leaves us begging the question…is it love or something else? if you look at one of the resources 'shakie' based his version on "Romeus and Juliet" by Brooke's then it becomes apparent that it was about lust, sin, etc everything that shouldn't be done. however shakespeare has taken Brooke's story and transformed it into legendary lines of inspiration that send the reader into the heady daze of "love". we question it because its too fast,it can't be real, lasting, love.
just thought I'd put my two cents in…albeit getting slightly off topic but oh well =] goodluck!
Count Paris who was to marry Juliet was at least 25. And thats another thing. I can’t see Romeo being young and killing all these guys that are much older than him.
Back in the day, it was common for people in their early- to mid-teens to marry and have children. It was considered that, as soon as you were physically able to have kids, it was right to marry and have kids.
Nowadays there's a bunch of useless, arbitrary rules with regard to the matter. Not to mention the decline of society, by which most teenage girls (and guys) are far too irresponsible to do so (not meant to offend those who are responsible, but it's simply a fact).
My wife and I got married at 17, had a beautiful daughter at 19 and we are doing very well (we are now 21 and our daughter is almost 2). I'm not bragging, simply stating that it can be done.
In the play, Romeo is most likely in his mid- to late teens. I'd have to look at it again (haven't read it since I was 13…) to be sure, but it sounds about right for the time.
This is incorrect and a common misconception. Although it would be common for people to marry and have kids younger (17 -20ish) it was still uncommon for people to marry at 13. That would be just as absurd as now days, it wasn’t a common thing done amongst ordinary working class people but it was done amongst rich and wealthy families sometimes. So this is an indicator of both Juliet’s families wealth and the type of people they were.
Yes, most teens are horridly irresponsible. That's mostly because of the labor laws at the beginning of the twentieth century. Before that time period people were either children or adults. Of course, everyone, as soon as they were physically able, were expected to work: babies could help with simple tasks as soon as they became toddlers and of course youths were expected to do adult work as soon as they were able.
"I can just imagine R&J being closed down because it promotes pedophilia or something. But honestly I'm cool with it (the age difference, not the pedophilia!)"
Has nothing to do with pedophilia since Juliet is 13. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to PREPUBERTAL childern, like 6 year olds.
That's absurd! Pedofilia is not restricted to children of that age. A pedophile is a man or woman who has a sexual obsession with children who are deemed to be minors in the eyes of the law. I do not think that Romeo and Juliet has any sort of pedophilia connotations to it, and trying to say it does draws away from the true context of one of Shakespeare's greatest works and trivializes the horror of a pedophiles abuse.
Pedophiles target children of all ages, and no matter what they may think a monster lies in the heart of each and every one of them. do not under estimate the depths they will sink to.
Juliet was 15 (did you READ what Dr J said at all??) and even if she was 13, does that mean its ok for a man in his 40's to have sex with her? NO because that would make him a pedophile. research has shown that children at that age are only just starting to think abstractly, they are not even capable of fully comprehending what is being asked of them, pedophiles take advantage of their innocence and any one who believes that that sort of behaviour is ok is just as bad as them and should be imprisoned with the rest.
Don't be silly, moodyteen.
Other Anon was just saying that that's not pedophilia.
It's hasbephilia.
Pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescents, hasbephilia is an attraction to teens.
Okay, so I'm just reading the story because I love old English, and Romeo and Juliet have always been on my reading list. So, what I'm getting from this is Romeo is from the ages 16-21? Am I correct?
Regardless of how old anyone would prefer Juliet to be, "Even or odde, of all the daies in the year come Lammas Eve at night she shall be fourteene."
This doesn't mean, of course, that she Must be played by a 14 year old.In the 1936 George Cukor film, Norma Shearer was in her 30s I believe, and Leslie Howard (Romeo) was in his 40s!–that I know to be a fact. Not many batted an eye. One more fact: I've never met a 13-14 year old male OR female respectively capable of playing either role. Lack of experience and classical technique being the reason. They just don't have the chops yet.
Another fact, is that we seem to have some kind of mania about making History "fit" our predisposed and/or prescribed estimation of how things "should be" (according to US of course–we're less concerned with how they REALLY WERE it seems).Perhaps that's why we learn so little FROM History.
Fact: No one in history gave a damn about our "opinion".
IN THE TEXT, Juliet "will be" 14. Case closed. We either cut the line or get some actor who's so good nobody gives a flying Capulet about how old she "really is".
So she's almost 14, and mom wants to upbraid her slightly for being a little long in the tooth when it comes to finding a man!?! Yes. It's IN THE TEXT.
Do we think Shakespeare was totally inventing the situation? How old was Romeo? I suppose there will always be someone to tell us how old he SHOULD have been, regardless of how old he COULD have been.
Next thing you know, someone will be accusing Shakespeare of being a child molester!
No matter how much we'd "like" everything to be tied up in a nice neat package, Life is simply not that way. Shakespeare knew it. Just read the TEXT. Why do we think his knowledge of human nature is so extensive?
Here's a little "History":
My mother was 15 when she met the Marine who became my father. He was 19, almost 20. She was 16 when they walked down the aisle together–A Catholic wedding, mind you! I was born 2 months after my mother turned 17. They raised my brother and myself, had a house, 1 1/2 cars (not always), a yard, and food on the table. More than once, they both told me it was "Love at first sight". Anyone who so easily dismisses the possibility of the truthfulness and honesty of that is commenting on and judging my parents. Or can we so easily dismiss that fact as though it doesn't exist either?
"Un-Honest desires"???
Arthur Brooke can go jump in a lake.
Well, The nurse and lady Capulet clearly state that Juliet it thirteen years of age in Act 1 Scene 3. So, her age is not an issue. But is it true that Shakespeare never mentioned Romeo's age. And we cannot rely on Brooke's Romeus and Juliet because of the massive changes that Shakespeare made to the text. I, personally, see Romeo around eighteen, or nineteen. Correct me if I'm wrong, but i don't believe age was much of concern back in the day. Shakespeare himself married Ann Hathaway who was twenty-six when Shakespeare was eighteen. Given, that was not the norm, but it did happen.
I don't find Romeo and Juliet creepy or odd at all. People forget that now-a-days, that might be considered wrong in the eye of the law, or hebephilia, but in the story, Shakespeare portrays a sense of intense, pure love. not a sexual attractions. Romeo doesn't automatically think that way about Juliet. "Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear!" He thinks she's beautiful. I think the perception of their love being "creepy" now, it the perverted mind-set of the times we live. The idea that the first thing Romeo thinks about is sex when that couldn't be further from the truth.
So, to reiterate my point, whenever i read the play, i see Romeo somewhere around eighteen.
Just stumbled across your blog while doing some research and thought I'd put in my two cents (:
-Dana, 15y/o
"That's absurd! Pedofilia is not restricted to children of that age. A pedophile is a man or woman who has a sexual obsession with children who are deemed to be minors in the eyes of the law. I do not think that Romeo and Juliet has any sort of pedophilia connotations to it, and trying to say it does draws away from the true context of one of Shakespeare's greatest works and trivializes the horror of a pedophiles abuse.
Pedophiles target children of all ages, and no matter what they may think a monster lies in the heart of each and every one of them. do not under estimate the depths they will sink to.
Juliet was 15 (did you READ what Dr J said at all??) and even if she was 13, does that mean its ok for a man in his 40's to have sex with her? NO because that would make him a pedophile. research has shown that children at that age are only just starting to think abstractly, they are not even capable of fully comprehending what is being asked of them, pedophiles take advantage of their innocence and any one who believes that that sort of behaviour is ok is just as bad as them and should be imprisoned with the rest."
What do you mean ONLY beginning to think abstractly! I take that as offending and an insult. I am 12 years old and I began thinking about many "abtract" things since age 7! By the way, pioneer girls were known to marry at age 13. So I see no wrongdoing for a girl to marry at that age in Olde England.
I know I'm a bit late to post a comment but when I came across this I had to post my oppinion.
I believe that shakespeare left Romeo agless for a reason.
Juliet, to me at least, was usually the most mature character in the entire story. Romeo was far less mature even though people are sure he was older.
I believe that love is ageless and that as long as you are mature enough to comprehend it you can fall in love.
I think that Romeo was never given an age because, when you think about it, anyone could be Romeo.
He is ageless. I've always assumed that, although it is clear that she is thirteen, he was the person who was her soulmate.
I'm not sure if that made sense but that was my take.
I'd be more interested in finding out why the families were girding to begin with. Although I'm sure even the families wouldn't have an answer.
That's just my take and I'm only 13 so chances are I sound immature