Shakespeare makes life better.
William Shakespeare is widely regarded as one of the most influential playwrights in history, and his plays have been performed and studied for centuries. From the timeless tragedy of Romeo and Juliet to the hilarious antics of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare’s plays continue to captivate audiences around the world. Whether you’re a fan of tragedy, comedy, or romance, there’s a Shakespeare play for everyone. So why not revisit these timeless classics and discover the magic of Shakespeare for yourself?
According to many “this day in history” sites March 11, 1302 is Romeo and Juliet’s wedding anniversary.
It’s not. In the opening scenes Lady Capulet tells us that it is “a fortnight and odd days until Lammas-tide”, which puts the play’s timeline in July.
5000 years ago makes it a little too early, and they never did make it to Mantua, but this article about two skeletons found locked in an embrace is loaded with enough Romeo and Juliet references to make it worth a link. An outstanding archaeological find, to be sure, though the whole “wife was probably sacrificed to keep the dead husband company” thing kinda puts a morbid spin on the romantic aspect.
I’ve mentioned before that a friend of mine teaches Romeo and Juliet. We had dinner this weekend, and I asked her how the class was going. “Well,” she said, “I never knew that Romeo killed Benvolio. I saw that on a test I was grading today.”I didn’t pester her all through dinner since I know she doesn’t love to talk about Shakespeare all night. But it’s got me wondering. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what leads up to such an answer. But why would a student give that answer? I figure it’s pretty unlikely that they’ve misunderstood the story so much that they think that Benvolio was killed by Romeo. More than likely they know that Romeo killed somebody (that’s probably how the question was asked, who does Romeo kill in Act III), and they blanked on the name. They then think of all the names they can remember and pick one that sounds right. That’s not necessarily a problem of understanding, that’s a problem of recall. The name Tybalt doesn’t stick in the head the same way that Romeo/Benvolio/Mercutio do. Those three also seem to come as a set, their names all sound similar. But Tybalt’s out in the cold, you have nothing to anchor him to. I suppose his name sounds a little like Juliet, or Capulet (that trailing T), but obviously not enough.But how do you fix that? Say that you’re about to teach the class, and you know that at the end of class you’re in danger of getting answers like Romeo killed Benvolio. What do you emphasize while teaching the story to prevent such mistakes from occuring?
Continuing on the Romeo and Juliet theme, here’s another question. We all know about the “ancient grudge” between the Montagues and the Capulets. The play starts out with a fight between them. One of the great stylized moments of the Luhrman version was the closeup on the guns and how they were all different “brands” of “sword”. But something I’ve always wondered is, just how violent are they toward each other? We know that they’ve “disturbed the streets” what, three times previously, the Prince tells us? But are we talking about glorified shouting matches, where neither side is really interested in doing anything more than flaunting their manhood? At the start, the worst we get is a thumb biting. And even then, whoever it was (Sampson?) has to ask, “Is the law on my side if I say Aye?” So we see that while he hates the Capulets, he doesn’t want to get in trouble, either. Swords come out, Benvolio attempts to beat them down, and then Tybalt joins the fray. We get the feeling that this has all happened before. What I’m wondering is, had it not been stopped, would someone have gotten hurt? Is it really violent, or just walking that edge?
Another thought — Montague’s first words to Benvolio are, “Who set this ancient quarrel new abroach?” That could be interpreted as meaning that the two families have not been clashing in the streets lately, that things have been settling down. The Prince doesn’t say that they’ve disturbed the streets three times in the last month, after all. Later, Capulet mentions to Paris, “Tis not so hard for men as old as we to keep the peace.” So maybe this ancient grudge is actually nearly forgotten, before suddenly being thrust back into the spotlight. What I’m wondering is, when Mercutio and Tybalt are killed, what’s the reaction of the crowd? How would a third party look upon the news story the next morning? Is violence just a part of daily life, and these were just two more stupid kids who ended up dead? Or do we have a case where it’s understood that yes, they hate each other, but it’s all talk, nobody gets hurt. Then, when somebody does finally get hurt, it has that much more impact, like “Holy cow, Romeo, what did you do???” Did Mercutio enter into the sword fight with Tybalt without ever thinking that he might actually get hurt? Did they not think that they were playing a life and death game? This sort of gets back to the idea from an earlier post about maturity levels and how old these kids are. They can act grown up, they can play with weapons like they were toys, and probably are in the habit of doing exactly that. But then the violence finally tips over the edge, and that’s when everything comes crashing down. Dare I say it? Momma always said, it’s all fun and games until Mercutio gets it in Act III. 🙂
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 smart. It’s better than trying to imagine 13-year-old Tybalt saying, “I hate the word as I hate Hell….”
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.
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.
